Re: Asian Migration to Scandinavia

Arnaud asked:

> I have not been able to see what Pinault wrote about this substrate.
> but he used to defend the idea that Tocharian owes much to Uralic
> languages, especially when it comes to the organisation of the local
> cases. Some people (like Perrot) were impressed by the evidence.
> Is this substrate not Uralic?
> What has changed in Pinault's views?

No, it isn't Uralic. It is a Central Asian substrate that Lubotsky and
Witzel identify with the non-IE language(s) of the BMAC people -- a
Bronze Age one. Witzel even hypothesizes that such language(s) may
have belonged in the Macro-Caucasian phylum along with NW Caucasic,
Burushaski etc.

I find it difficult to procure myself Pinault's articles. I have seem
something on the JSTOR archives in the past, but now...

Regards,
Francesco