>Here are the results of the vote:
>
>1. coincidence 1
Obviously this person above needs to splash cold water on his face and
re-read his references.
>2. loanwords from a common source / areal features 1
Disturbing but nonetheless, only one, thank god.
>3. genetic relationship 3
Hmm, obviously two other people think like me.
>4. loanwords from Uralic into IE 4
>5. loanwords from IE into Uralic 7
Now come on, guys! I think someone voted twice.
Methinks we should start talking about Uralic grammar honestly and get over
this misinformed religion that shuns the IE-Uralic link in favor of no
genetic relationship in its place. It's a given that IE derived from an
earlier form and that it is surely related to something. There are plenty of
Uralic connections beyond empty Satem borrowings but we must be ready to, as
scientists, unbiasedly explore them despite one's personal feelings. The
question is how many of these above people even know what Uralic is or have
explored into this end of research?
So fellow scientists: How for instance do we explain the similarities in
declension such as the ablative (Uralic *-ta, IndoEuropean *-ed), the
genitive (Uralic *-na, IndoEuropean *-om, Etruscan -n) and the accusative
(Uralic *-m, IndoEuropean *-m, Etruscan -n(i)). The use of suppletive
conjugational suffixes (Uralic subjective/objective, IE active/stative)? How
do we explain the same personal and interrogative pronouns being used which
strictly conform to the pattern of "m, t, s" from 1rst to 3rd person
singular? What about Altaic which has most of the same features.
Are we so irrational to ASSUME all is borrowed from one or the other
language group? At what point do we stop assuming borrowing and start
scientifically accepting genetic relationship? Come now! I smell cowardly
bias in the ranks. Who dares talk about this properly?
I want a clear, rational definition of what is needed to link IE to Uralic.
No nay-saying, just a clear unbiased criteria for such a proof.
- gLeN
______________________________________________________