Me (Glen) and my slight redrawing of the DeneCaucasian tree which I'm proud
of :)
> |-"T" Group (VascoCauc.)-------- Basque, NEC...
> |
> DeneCaucasian---| |------------------ NigerK.
> | |
> | |------------------ Nostratic
> |-"S" Group--|
> | |-- Burushaski
> |----BuruYen----|
> | |-- Yeneseian
> |
> | |------- SinoTibetan
> | |
> | |
> |-SinoDene-|
> | |----- NWC
> |-|
> |----- Na-Dene
Alexander ponders:
>Glen, does this follow from the scheme: Basque and NEC families form >a
>superfamily, i.e. a unit of the same rank as Nostratic >superfamily?
I maintain that Nostratic is _also_ a DeneCaucasian language (look again
above, below NigerK). My view is based on some observed similarities between
Nostratic and DeneCaucasian languages as a whole. What has already been done
in the DC field, I am completely unaware, and I surmise that nothing secure
has been laid down anyway, judging by what's been done with Nostratic.
To me, DeneCaucasian must be older (c. 25,000+ BCE) than Nostratic (c.
15,000 BCE). What John presents as archaeological evidence of African
migrations out of the continent seems to corelate with my idea but it means
that my original view of DC and Nostratic originating from the Middle East
needs to be modified such that they originate from the mouth of Africa in
Egypt.
>In other words, is it proven that Basque and Lezghin languages are >as
>closely related to each other as, say, Yukagir and Hausa or >Georgian and
>Tamil?
Lezghi is an NEC language and should be one of the closest to Basque
(Lezghi/Basque seperation: approx 22,000 yrs). In contrast, Chinese and
Basque would be seperated by a good 27,000 years or more. Yukaghir is closer
to Finnish or Hungarian (Finnish/Yukaghir seperation: approx 7-9,000 years)
but a remote relation to AfroAsiatic languages like Hausa appears to exist
based on the Nostratic theory (Yukaghir/Hausa seperation: 17,000 yrs).
Georgian is a Kartvelian language and Tamil, a Dravidian one, both Nostratic
languages with a seperation of 17,000 yrs.
None of the above connections are considered "proven" in the minds of the
mainstreamists. However, I continue to state that comparative linguistics is
a theoretical, not physical or absolute, science. So when we say "proven",
this too must be a relative term.
In that light, we should be searching for the most logical theory not
absolute proof (unless we can build a time-machine). DC is a better theory
than the common "Nothing Hypothesis" and better than other more outrageous
theories like Proto-World that have severe methodological (and
psychological) problems. :) Nostraticists state that their methodology is
nothing different from what was done in the past to connect IE languages
together and to that, I've never heard a good rebuttle.
>If so, when do you think they parted? Are Basques descendants of the >first
>wave of European farmers who came from Anatolia c. 7000 BC?
I have heard of genetic results showing that Basques appear to have been in
the area for 18,000 years (Was it Cavalli-Sforza stuff again?)
Whether or not such a genetic study has yielded anything conclusive, I
dunno. However based on the Basque language and connections to NEC as well
as the possibility that DC was spoken 25,000+ BCE, the above estimate seems
very reasonable.
This would of course mean that the Vasconics (what I like to call the
pre-Basques) were spread out into a larger area than they are now and must
have been part of the pre-existing languages before the arrival of
agriculture by people, possibly speaking Semitish languages (Semitic words
exist in Basque like /sei/ "six" and /zazpi/ "seven" that can't be explained
easily as being loaned from Latin or other IndoEuropean languages.)
These European Semitish languages would have finally began to decline
starting 4500 BCE with the spread of IndoEtruscan migrants from the
Pontic-Caspian area via land migration (Kurgan I) and possibly also
crossings of the Black Sea (Pelasgian, in part?), speaking Tyrrhenian
dialects that would eventually become Etruscan, Rhaetian and Lemnian.
By 3500 BCE, the days would have been numbered for these Semitish dialects
with the arrival of IE from the same area (Kurgan II), already partially
erased by Tyrrhenian influence (cf. Etruscan, Lemnian, Rhaetian) but fully
erased by Germanic and Celtic dialects that fanned far to the west.
Perhaps this is why most evidence of this unseen Semitish group comes from
offerings in Germanic and Celtic. This focused linguistical effect of only
the most western European languages would be the desired result if indeed
Tyrrhenian had been the substratum "buffer" in eastern Europe well before of
the arrival of IE dialects. The most western Semitish dialects would
continue to thrive well after 4500 BCE through the failing of strong western
spread of Tyrrhenian, leaving the Germanic and Celtic exposed to full
influence of Semitish.
Among other things, the Germanic word for "seven" which appears to be an
improper reflex of IE *septm (lacking *-t- completely) is used as proof. A
reborrowing perhaps? Together with Etruscan (/s'a/ "six" and /semph/ "7")
and Basque (/sei/ "six" and /zazpi/ "seven"), it all appears to substantiate
the validity of this Semitish claim that otherwise cannot be explained.
Perhaps Semitish *shex and *sepx were floating around in Europe, having some
religious numerological significance? Just a thought.
- gLeN
______________________________________________________