/ita/ - Sezione Italiana - Siamo Tornati

>>16912

First of all, wait a minute that flag, secondly, /ita/ really shouldn't be your go-to place to find out how modern Italians speak like. We're deliberately trying to use a more classic version of Italian, removing most loan words and translating foreign words with an Italian-ized version of them (this was actually common practice up until the sixties though). As an example, we literally translate Facebook as Faccialibro.

Learning how Italians actually speak is kind of a more complex question than you might think. While most would claim that proper Italian is the kind you would find in official documents, the reality of it all is that regional slangs are much more important to understand the culture of each individual area of Italy. So you can go about it in two different ways, you can either pick up some comfy Italian Fumetti to learn the gist of how "normal" Italian is spoken without having to deal with some faggy Literature major flexing on you because you don't know what Ammannita or Vilipendio mean, or you can focus on individual regions and learn not only the way they speak, but also quite a bunch of idioms and slang terms that end up having a much stronger impact in your understanding of the language. Heck, some words are so intrinsically regional they have no direct translation in proper Italian and will help you get around much better in that region.

Anyhow going back to your original inquiry, Sicilians are swarthy, at least as far as the stereotype goes, but they also have a much more complex culture being a hub for very different people. Guy's literally calling you a "filthy kebab" but in a friendlier way. Or probably your accent is more in-line with how Sicilians speak, you should probably clarify what you meant.

Comunque sia ci fa piacere che tu venga qui per esercitarti, non farti scoraggiare dalla difficoltà iniziale, l'Italiano è una lingua molto più importante di quanto sembri. Se te lo chiedono, il Sardo è la lingua e l'Italiano è il dialetto

>>16923

This.

Back when I was still in highschool I had a classmate I was friend with who was from Sicily, he had brown hair and green eyes, which isn't exactly uncommon. The real surprise was when I went to his place for the first time and met his parents who might as well have been Swiss judging by their blonde hair, blue eyes and prominent Nordic features. According to himself as far as he knew his family background, they were all born and raised in Sicily, not in Northern Italy, not in Norway, not in Finland.

Now with this I'm not saying "Sicily is 200% aryan and everyone is a 6 feet+ tall blonde stud in there, truss", what I'm saying instead is don't believe faggots who tell the region is "LITERALLY Africa" or that the people are all "Arab rapebaby mutts", it's all divide and conquer propaganda pushed by jews and retards who just lap it up like good goyim because le epin infograph DNA chart told them so.

I haven't visited Sicily myself yet but word from relatives of mine is that they're just the same bunch of conmen the rest of us Italians are, no more, no less.

>>16929

>but to Anatolian farmers who migrated to Western Europe 5000 years ago.

No, otherwise Sardinians would have the most and south Italians would overlap with them, while they have close to none. Anatolian farmers had no iran_neolitic/CHG/natufian input and related uniparental lineages like J2/E1b-M78, neither did neolithic/copper age Italians like Remedello ones. Even north Italians and some Frenchmen have more neolithic anatolian ancestry than south Italians. There were migrations of west asian related peoples carrying Y-DNA J2 and CHG/Iran_neolithic ancestry after the neolithic.

>Neither Iberian peninsula is blacked however, indeed modern studies day that today Spanish and Portuguese people genetically plots more on the northwest even than Northern Italians.

You haven't seen the major study on Iberia that came out just few days ago then. See https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2019_Olalde_Science_IberiaTransect_0.pdf

>Our genetic evidence of sporadic contacts with North Africa during the Copper Age fits with the presence of African ivory at Iberian sites (16) and is further supported by a Bronze Age individual (I7162) from Loma del Puercoin southern Iberia who had 25% ancestry related to individuals like I4246 (Fig. 1D and table S16). However, these early movements from North Africa had a limited impact on Copper and Bronze Age Iberians, as North African ancestry only became widespread in the past ~2000 years.

They only plot a bit more northwest than north Italians because they descend from farmers rich in western hunter gatherer ancestry like Basques, but said ancestry got diluted both by some north African input and also Italian/Greek input from Romans and Greeks.

>>16928

>>16926

>>16929

>>16930

Azz, e noi che pensavamo di essere assediati dalle forze dell'ordine informatiche, in realtà era lo studio di Super Quark

>>16945

Davvero? Qualche fonte? Non perchè non ci creda ma perchè da quando so che anche gli slavi si sono trasferiti in Terronia nel medioevo, non ci capisco più niente.

>>16930

That's not true at all. The amount of neolithic EEF genomes in italy goes Sardinia (highest) > Southern italy > Northern Italy, with there being a cline of indo european admixture, found highest in the north.

The south has a particularly high combination of both caucasian derived ancestry and neolithic anatolian ancestry, not north african.

Also, that spanish study came out of David Reich's lab, who, if you didn't know is a liberal cuck pushing a narrative that all people are mixed and euros need to accept more nogs as a result. Here's the cuck that wrote it.

>>16993

>The amount of neolithic EEF genomes in italy goes Sardinia (highest) > Southern italy > Northern Italy

no, not if we are talking about Anatolia_neolithic or European neolithic

see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J7bvtIm8Am8orojL-MceafjY7B5s2tp8m8byJ9BnlDk/edit#gid=0

aside from Sardinia, the old neolithic package is strongest in Iberia and north Italy/south France, but also Albania

>>16929

This guy gets it.

>>17066

You guys are still stuck with old ass models that conflated all sorts of "farmer" ancestries back when there was no ancient samples to represent farmers. "EEF", anno domini 2019, means "Anatolia_neolithic". These are the people who brought farming in Europe. There were also other farmers in Iran and Levant. Ancestry related to the latter two began arriving particularly in southeast Europe later, starting from the late neolithic to the bronze and iron age.

Cretans have plenty of "farmer" ancestry, but their "farmer" ancestry is heavily influenced by those latter two I mentioned, which is also why they have so much E-V13 and J2, nearly completely absent in neolithic Europe.

The pic I posted is good because it shows how the overall high Anatolian aka EEF ancestry(remember, this is what colonized Europe) is strongest in SW Europe, while in the east it is diluted both by Steppe/IE admixture but also by east Mediterranean admixture. The pics you posted yourself show that all these SE people are eastern/caucasus shifted compared to neolithic Anatolians. Even Minoans were already shifted compared to stone age Peloponnese Greeks(and indeed carried J2).

>>17091

fuck, meant to post this

the other is based on f3 alone, it's pretty good and the results don't differ too much, but better use the normal pca

>>17091

Iran isn't even anywhere near italy. I'm pressing strong X to doubt. These studies contract each other and change yearly. There are no archeological connections to southern italy or the aegean with iran or levant, and I'm 90% sure these claims are the same garbage types of studies used to push a political narrative of euro mongrelization.

Also

>taking haplogroups seriously as a measure of ancestry

topkek. I guess Chad is the whitest of us all then, huh?

Yes, the aegean and southern europe likely had a degree of caucasian influence which is far more realistic considering anatolia and the caucuses shared a known combined archealogical history.

Iranian and levantine though? That's part of the same type of garbage that comes from that cuck inigo who claims southern iberians are more north african/levantine than european.

>>17106

>Iran isn't even anywhere near italy. I'm pressing strong X to doubt.

Obviously this ancestry didn't arrive straight from Iran, but it did from people related to them, over thousands of years. Even bronze age Anatolia had already some of this ancestry, and bronze metallurgy was brought to Europe likely from there, coming ultimately from the near east. The farmers in the near east began mixing with each other and then expanded. Look at pic related, you can almost draw a straight line between Barcin_N(neolithic Anatolia), Minoans, early Bronze age Anatolians, and CHG/neolithic Iran. Mycenaeans are a bit more northern precisely because of some steppe ancestry.

>>taking haplogroups seriously as a measure of ancestry

>topkek. I guess Chad is the whitest of us all then, huh?

Haplogroups are fundamental to trace migrations. Bringing Chad up isn't a good example, since people who actually know what they are talking about know that subclades exist, and that Chadic R1b-V88 split from Europeans M269 tens of thousands of years ago. It arrived into Africa hopping from mesolithic Europe(plenty of V88 in Iron gates foragers), to neolithic Europe(found in Spain, recently Sardinia), to some levantine or north african population that migrated south. Neolithic Iranians and CHG had J2. Neolithic Anatolians/Greek and Europeans did not(aside from one or two among hundreds), they were G2a and I2. Come the bronze age, and Minoans/Mycenaeans have mostly J2 and not surprisingly show higher affinity to CHG/Iran_N. Ain't rocket science.

>>17113

>bronze age metallurgy was brought to europe from there

More likely indo europeans who we actually have a well documented archeological and liguistic record of conquering europe during the bronze age.

I'm stilling calling BS on Iranian ancestry. This reminds me of back when geneaologists were claiming all of europeans were 1/3 to 1/2 african. This is a political narrative and any sensible person realizes that even if somehow trace amounts of iranian ancestry made its way to europe, they'd be diluted to the point of being unmeasurable. The same goes with levantine, as europe has no history of levantine colonization or admixture.

The fact that you have to pretend Caucasian hunter gatherers were a genetic equivalent to iranians is proof of how faulted this theory is.

>"Bringing Chad up isn't a good example, since people who actually know what they are talking about know that subclades exist"

People who actually know what they're talking about realize that haplogroups have been fundamentally inaccurate and horrible methods of tracing ancestry.

subclade R1b-V88, is still far closer to R1b M269 than any other haplogroup will be. By your logic people from Chad should be closer related to western europeans than people from the caucuses or the middle east, or R1a slavs which we know is a good joke of a claim.

Geneaology has devolved into nothing but an inaccurate tool for pushing narratives, usually those of race mixing, by subsidized liberal "intellectuals" from big name universities such as Harvard. Similar to BS claims of Iranian heritage, this study which claims S. Italians are racially mixed simultaniously holds that the middle east has more Nordic ancestry than italians.

The claims are entirely laughable and you see this sort of garbage everywhere.

>>17131

The concept of neolithic farming and a genetic continuum from anatolia, to greece and to italy is historically backed. Many of the founding greek tribes such as the ionians even claim their origins from anatolia in the first place, and in italy you have the myths of Troy. Likewise you see the same pottery and archaeological aspects between these peoples as well. This isn't "emotions" but simply historic and prehistoric physical evidence. Something that doesn't exist for any audacious "iranian-italic" genetic continuum. There's nothing inconsistant about what I've said. My standpoint is quite simple: I strongly doubt genetic studies that aren't backed by history or archaeology, and the diversity and contradictions that exist within so many of these studies should be evidence enough for their unreliable nature. There have even been studies done backing this notion, finding european genomes tend to be universally underrepresented in ancestral informative markers.

Nobody is advocating that europeans are 100% cro-magnon. Not sure where you got that from.

You can "successfully" model any race from a host of ancestral markers that have nothing to do with their genetic background through cherry picking which AIMs belong to where. Hence all the conflicting and contradicting studies.

>"You'll perhaps agree that having actual ancient DNA is much better than working backwards with modern DNA alone."

For comparative purposes, sure, but the same problems that exist with IDing AIMs from modern DNA still exist with ancient. Hence as to why neither you, nor your studies can decide if the mycaneans and minoans were influenced by caucasian ancestry or iranian.

"Ancient DNA isn't supporting continuity from the neolithic"

agreed, it supports continuity from the bronze age for both northern europe and southern europe.

>>17138

Se vuoi offendere:

>dici ad una persona che vive nel Sud Italia che è un Terrone

>dici ad un Milanese che è un Napoletano

>dici ad un Napoletano che è un Napoletano

>dici ad un Sardo che è un Italiano

>dici ad un Siciliano che è un mafioso (punti bonus: non dire che è di Cosa Nostra - siciliana - ma digli che è camorrista - napoletana - o della n'drangheta - calabrese)

>dici ad un Veneto che il veneto è un dialetto

>dici ad un Romano qualsiasi cosa

Per il resto hai carta bianca per dire quello che vuoi, basta che chi ti sta attorno capisca che stai scherzando con loro.

Poi, se ho capito bene, la tua domanda è "how do you Italians look on the prouder people like Sardinians?", in questo caso ti posso dire che è divertente prenderli in giro ma la maggior parte delle persone vede ogni regione come parte dell'Italia, tranne che quella da cui provengono, quindi con un sentimento a metà tra l'orgoglio e la disperazione.

>>17140

>"all of these people lived way after the neolithic, moot point."

Wrong. Not when archaeology supports the claims of at bare minimum cultural continuity as far back as the neolithic.

>"which was already CHG/Iran shifted"

There you again pretending that the caucuases and Iran are genetic equivalents.

>"What's more likely, that these people are remembering something from 6000BC or from 3000BC?"

Again, you act as if founding myths have no value and are based in fiction and that the archaeology that supports them doesn't matter.

>"There are links between SE Europe and the levant going back as the neolithic, i.e cardium pottery culture"

The cardium pottery culture started in epirus and later extended to italy and iberia. It has literally nothing to do with levant.

>"which almost certainly brought the otherwise Natufian/Levantine lineage of E-M78, later becoming E-V13."

Or perhaps halpgroups are a garbage way to measure ancestry as has been known for some time and people like yourself enjoy jumping to conclusions to fulfill your own self made prophecies/theories through them.

>"pretty much nobody has been using AIMs in population genetics in god knows how many years, this tells me you haven't even remotely been following the subject"

Are you retarded? Literally all modern commercial genetic testing like ancestry and 23&me is done via AIMs as well as plenty of current studies. Here's one from 2018 about attempting to infer the population substructure of india using AIMs: https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/10/9/2408/5089236

Using genome wide markers doesn't mean that AIMs aren't taken into consideration. When referring to studies done specifically on ethnic or racial ancestry, AIMs are the chief markers analyzed; hence the name "ancestral informative marker". They're quite literally just groups of SNPs which are thought to correlate with geographic and racial origin. See the issue with that? The inference as to what AIMs belongs to where and what is noise and what is not, becomes up to whatever "model" the author chooses to apply. You can use full genomes, but the same problem still exists, no matter how few or many AIMs you include. At the end of the day it's all inference.

"for the most, point is that some of this west asian/CHG/iran/east med related ancestry arrived during that period"

Lmao, so now it's west asian/caucases/iran/east med? Maybe you'd like to throw china, india and pakistan into that clearly and totally single homogneous genetic conglomerate that you just described.

By your claims any country that interacts with another immediately becomes admixed and the whole world should just be some heterogenous blob of equal racial ambiguity.

>"and fundamentally this is not entirely true, mainland Greeks for instance are simply not the same as Mycenaeans"

Greeks and italians share the highest FST values in the world for the mycaneans. Any "genetic shift" that occurred to greeks between the mycaneans and present day was simply a slight change in ratios of ancestral heritage that were already present in the first place. Greeks are certainly the rightful heirs of the mycaneans and anyone who claims otherwise is simply attempting to defame their objective heritage.

>>17159

>Wrong.

So Etruscans and Ionians lived during the neolithic?

We are done here. The rest is pure comedy gold as well.

When you actually start reading anything published in the last 10 years, call me. Start from Haak et Al 2015 and Lazaridis study on the world first farmers from 2016(where you can(probably not) learn some basic things like how CHG and Iran_n are mostly the same and often used interchangeably).

AIMs have not been used by the major geneticists who have been untangling west Eurasian ancestry in the last 5-10 years. The fact that you had to desperately google some literal indian nobodies who probably can't afford running genomewide tests is just laughable.

>>17160

>"so the etruscans and ionians lived during the neolithic?"

Their unnamed ancestors who couldn't physically create records did.

>"We are done here. The rest is pure comedy gold as well."

Sounds like you've no retort to me disproving your silly notion of "AIMS no longer being used" and that AIMS are reliable in the first place.

>"like how CHG and Iran_n are mostly the same"

You're telling me these people are "mostly the same"? That's a good joke.

>"AIMs have not been used by the major geneticists who have been untangling west Eurasian ancestry in the last 5-10 years."

Wrong. Nice quick move of goalposts though.

>"The fact that you had to desperately google some literal indian nobodies who probably can't afford running genomewide tests is just laughable."

And there you go again pretending the ancestral markers aren't already part of genome wide testing. Where do you think they get the data for percentage of ancestry in any of the studies you refer to? Most of human markers are the same across races, which is why Ancestral Informative Markers have to be specifically found and investigated to determine ancestry in an individual before even throwing out an estimate.