Re: Prehistoric Ethnogenic Processes

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

> Amazing results. Congratulations. An enormous work with possibly enormous
> implications. Thank you very much for your stimulating work!

Thank you too for the such high valuation of my work. This is only an
extract from my book in Ukrainian. If you should read the whole work,
the matter is more clear for you.

> 1) Could you please explain in simple words (some examples?) what is the importance of first & second word levels for your method?

I can exlpain that on the example of Indoeuropean languages. The words
of Indoeuropean languages wich have correspondences in all Nostratic
languages belong to the first (Nostratic) level. These words are so -
bright (sun, light, fire etc), dark (black, night), to seize (to catch,
to take), hunger (suffering, death), to throw (to cast, to hurl, to
shoot) and similar. Nostratic languages are the languages of the first
level.
The words of Indoeuropean languages wich have correspondences in all
Indoeuropean languages (common Indoeuropean words) belong to the secind
level. These words have more concrete sense - father, mother, man, cow,
sun, day etc. Separate Indoeuropean languages (Greek, Latin, Old
Indian, Old Iranian, Germanic etc) are the languages of the second
level. English, German, Gotic etc are the languages of the third level.

> 2) Do you suppose Uralic, IE, Altaic, Sem-Ham., Kartvelian & Dravidian all
> split at the same moment? or do you only suggest these peoples were in close
> contact at some time?

I think that Uralic, IE, Altaic, Sem-Ham., Kartvelian & Dravidian were
splitting from the common languages during certain long time when
speakers of these languages were living on the same territory with
geographic borders. But separate groups of thes speakers could leave
this territory in different time.

(Is your Sem-Ham. is only a small part of

> Afro-Asiatic?)

I took prepared data of Illich-Svitych.

Suppose you didn't select these 6 language groups, but a

> smaller or larger group of languages --would that have yielded other
> results?

The possibility of bringing of Illich-Svitych's data in a certain system
confirms that the selection was correct.

> 3) Other scholars have suggested other geographies, eg, AFAIR Andreyev (your
> footnote 15) believes Uralic+IE+Altaic ("Boreal") at the end of the last Ice
> Age must have lived somewhere in the Carpathians. If both his & your
> conclusions are correct, that means that they must have traveled together to
> the Kaukasus?? Or do you think Andreyev is wrong

I think so.


Before I had read your "Introduction" I had thought that the early

> IEs had borrowed agricultural terms form Sem-Ham.

Yes, you have right. A some branch of Sem-Ham come through Anatoly and
Balkans to South Ukraine and founded here Tripolje culture. They had a
contact with IEs here.

> 4) Greek & Germanic are in the centre of your IE homeland. Could this be due
> (only?) to the fact that these languages had the largest number of words
> used in your analysis? Is this a "real" homeland, or were these IE languages
> only in close contact at that time?

I tried to use all languages even.

> 5) Some of your word identifications are not very convincing (eg, Eng.
> jump – Yagn. jumb "to move",

The translation is not correct. It may be approximately "to move swift"

> 6) It's amazing how many migrations must have taken place. Perhaps periods
> of (long?) stasis alternating with brief periods of (intense?) migration?

Certainly!

> 7) By combining your results with other methods more accurate constructions
> are perhaps possible?

I am sure. Sorry, my English is bed, I cannot explain more clearly.

Best wishes. Valentyn Stetsyuk.