[MTLR] Re: The paradox of the Basco-Caucasian hypothesis

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>
> In other words the old system is Uralic
> P1 -n- (PIE -m-)
> P2 -k- (PIE -t-)
> P4 -m- (PIE -nos-)
> P5 -t- (PIE ywos)
>
> The forms of the plural have invaded the forms of the singular in

Uralic

> and this trend has been reinforced by IE languages in contact with

Uralic.

>
> In other words, the pillar of the IE-URalic connection does not

exist.

> *m and *t for P1 and P2 in URalic is a myth resulting from easy-go-

merry

> analysis.
>
> It's interesting to note that P1 *-n- is like many Amerind

languages.

> This is the place to look first for Uralic relatives.
>

So, no genetic relation between IE and Ur, all common words and
isoglosses betwen some IE and some Ur languages are due to borrowing?

Just for the record, without asking you to argue your point as it is
outside the list's subject matter of IE, where do you stand regarding
Ur-Altaic and Ur-Dravidian relations?

Thanks,

KE