[tied] Re: PIE's closest relatives

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Alexander Stolbov" <astolbov@...>
wrote:

> Torsten wrote:
> > > What made Schrijver to conclude that this stem is not-IE if it

is

> > met in
> > > such a wide (both geographically and genetically) range of IE
> > languages?
> >
> > North European languages.
>
>
> Well, both Germanic and Baltic are North European languages - from

the

> formal geographical point of view. But there is nothing common in

their

> substrates.
>
> The Germanic speaking population has formed on the territory of

modern North

> Germany and South Scandinavia. The southern part of this area was

settled by

> the LinearBandKeramik people, who later were substituted by

megalithic

> cultures. Then came IE (Corded Ware culture). Thus the possible

substrate

> for Germanic could have only Central European (LBK) or

Western/South-Western

> (megalithic cultures) origin.
>
> The Baltic speaking population has formed on the territory of the

East

> European forests.

How come the Balts don't originate on the coast? Wasn't the whole
Kurgan thing a pincer movement, with Corded Ware in the North found
first in the Baltic countries and Holland?

> > The relationship is obvious, true. The direction of derivation

isn't.

> > The alternative explanation is that PIE *h1roudh-ro-

means "copper-

> > colored" and not that copper is "the red metal". The color red is

not

> > very common in nature.
>
> What about blood and meat?
>

That's taboo stuff. I think I read all those "red, red-yellow, pale,
yellowish" terms were originally horse or cattle color terms.
Unpolished copper matches nicely there.

Torsten