Glen
> Whether you claim it to be Kaskian or you claim it to be of
> "NWC/Kaskian/Hattic" origin, you're still making a fatal assumption that
> Kaskian is implicated in all of this. What gives you this impression?
> (And how many times do I have to ask this question before I get
> frustrated by your suspicious lack of clear response?)
The assumptions are not mine; they are a digest of the findings and
assumptions of specialists in this academic field, who have a far more
intimate knowledge of the area through historical and geographical
time than either of us. What they do /not/ do is to subscribe to or try
to fit these findings around any pre-conceived Nostratic theory.
Necessarily, given the time span we are dealing with, the concrete
answers are not there, and probably never will be there, given the present
state of knowledge. In all of this there is an element of 'best guess'.
Their thinking, however, is no more speculative than elements of Nostratic
theory.
Can you disprove that the use of toponyms/hydronyms is relevant? Topo-
nyms and hydronyms don't 'travel' in my experience - that is why they are
so valuable as evidence of earliest, if not autochthonous, occupation of the
land. As I said elsewhere, it is my understanding that they form a basic
tool for linguists world-wide. What alternative reasoning would you put
forward for the probable linguistic affiliation of the Kaski?
I think it would perhaps be helpful if you could at least look at some of the
references I have given.
Geoff Powers