Indo-European and Uralic families.

Kalevipoeg. Where did you take your theory from? Would you care to enter a source? By the way, would you also state that Norwegians came from India as they speak related languages?  

Uh-oh. This might get a bit complicated now.
"Finns" and "Estonians" DIDN'T COME from any specific place as such. A "Finn" and an "Estonian" is a national identity that has quite recently (like all national identities) crystallised after a cultural evolution which has probably been going on for thousands of years.
There NEVER was a group of humans who called themselves "Finns" or "Estonians" and travelled from somewhere as a group in their modern locations. Similarly, there NEVER was a group of people who called themselves "Norwegians" or "Englishmen" and travelled to today's Norway or the British Isles.
Archeological finds suggest that today's Finland (and northern Scandinavia) for example have been inhabited by a more or less CONTINUOUS culture at least from the comb ceramic culture onwards (ca. 5000b.c.), most likely even from the Suomusj�rvi culture (similar to the Komsa culture of Norway) ca. 8000b.c. onwards (practically as soon as the ice sheet receded).
Of course if you go WAY back you can say that ALL Europeans came from Asia since Middle-East is part of Asia and that is the only route from Africa to Europe.
I don't understand what looks have to do with anything we have dealt here. The lack of pigment (resulting in blond hair and light eyes) is just an adaptation to life in northern latitudes and can be found in some Fenno-Ugric speakers as well as in some Indo-European speakers.

But Estonians came from Asia or the south (by one of the two big rivers in Ukraine, Dnepr or the other one). And weren't they not Asian looking if they had lived there for thousands of years, it is biological and due to the climate.

All Europeans came from Asia, Europe was populated by people moving up through the Balkans and over the Black sea, from Asia.
There is no such thing as 'Asian looking', Asia is an entire continent that included Turks, Indians, Japanese, and then some.
Besides, you are suggesting a Western/Central Asia origin, which means they should look Turkish or something.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Originally posted by Teup Other Germanic -> Dutch sk --------------> sx So the English word scar is schaar in Dutch, and skill is schil

well, ok, it doesn't work for English

I'll add a collumn:

Oth.Ger.   Dutch    English

      sk     sx ('sch')   S ('sh')

skjut - schiet - shoot

it's in that direction also, sk is the oldest form, that one is likely to be assimilated into sx (so you can keep on making fricative noise), and the x in several germanic languages is, in turn, likely to turn S, under influence of even lazier people, like the Englishmen . The pronounciation of M�nchen is a good example of the latter (although it's not precisely a x originally).

Well I'll wrap up here.. I was just in a phonetics mood today

Edited by Teup

"Dutch is the closest relative of English. The Frisian language, spoken in the Dutch province of Friesland and very closely related to Dutch, is even closer to English" ---http://www.phrasebase.com/languages/index.php?cat=60

Some sites are really, really full of crap

SOme do, ironicly, Lowland Scots more Germanic than modern English is, but yet the Scots are the most vocal about their Celticness.

Friesan is the language closest to Anglo-Saxon. Modern English is Anglo-Saxon+Anglo-Norman, making it somewhere inbetween Friesan and French.

Originally posted by Cywr Friesan is the language closest to Anglo-Saxon. Modern English is Anglo-Saxon+Anglo-Norman, making it somewhere inbetween Friesan and French.

Between, perhaps, but not evenly so-- rather, much closer to Frisian. The Norman influences were primarily (though not entirely) lexical, with a bit of derivational morphology as well. Influences, however, most importantly non-syntactic ones, do not denote relation than genetic closeness.