From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61043
Date: 2008-10-23
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
>> 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.
> . . .
> Yes, I saw that but the problem is that he accepts Bengtson uncritically.
> Bengtson may well be correct in the long run, but we'll never know unless
> and until he cleans up his act and moves from mass com to reconstruction
>
===========
The first issue is how can Tokharian (or any language) have _two_ substrates
at the same time ?
I'd like to understand that.
Arnaud
===========