Re: Fate of Conventional PIE's Relatives

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@> wrote:

(quoting Tavi - please don't remove the record of who said what)

>>> And finally, one of these paleo-dialects
>>> underwent a rapid expansion in the Chalcolithic and the Bronze
>>> Age, becoming a superstrate to the other varieties.

>> What sort of evidence persuades you that it was a superstrate,
>> rather than the other varieties becoming substrates?

> If a variety A is a superstrate of another variety B, then B is a
> substrate of A, or perhaps I'm mistaken?

I'm used to superstrate and substrate being what is left of the other language in the surviving language, so such a symmetry makes no sense long after the period of co-existence. However, I now see that some do use the terms as you do, though I must say the concept of modern English having an Old English *substrate* feels bizarre to me.

It would appear that what you wrote and I quoted above is compatible with two quite different propositions:

(A) And finally, one of these paleo-dialects underwent a rapid expansion in the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age, and replaced the other varieties.

(B) And finally, one of these paleo-dialects underwent a rapid expansion in the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age, and left words in the other varieties.

Proposition (A) is not an outrageous claim, though the date is challenged.

However, my understanding from your various attacks on 'conventional PIE' is that you support Proposition (B). Incidentally, this appears to conflict with your claim of a widespread Vasco-Caucasian substrate in Europe.

The notion of a North Caucasian adstrate in PIE while it was spoken North or South of the Black Sea is fairly respectable - the part of low repute is the lumping together of NE and NW Caucasian.

Richard.