Re: A SinoTibetan-Vasconic Comparison: A very, very, very,verylengt

Glen in reply to Alexander's point

> Alexander:
> >You use both terms - "Semitish" and "Semitic". Is there difference
>between
> >them?

wrote

> I use "Semitish" as the hypothetical substratum that brought

agriculture to

> Europe as opposed to "Semitic", being a real, attested entity.

Glen, there is no archaeological or any other evidence that agriculture
was brought to Europe by Afro-Asiatics at all. Semites do not seem to
have got onto the Cappodacian Plateau or any point west of Cilicia
until the Assyrian merchants we have already spoken of on the list. It
is highly unlikely that the first farmers in Europe spoke Semitish.
They would have more likely spoken perhaps Hurrian-Urartu-Khattish, or
(pace Alexander) Etrusco-Lemnian, or even, god help us Kartvellian,
than they would have spoken Semitish.

> >Would not it be more correct to discuss a possible Afro-Asiatic
>influence
> >on Vasconic rather than the Semitic/Semitish one? I could >expect

rather a

> >Berber-like influence (because of pure geographical >reasons).
>
> Well, this is up for debate, however we still need to explain the

language

> spoken by the early agriculturalists which seem to have come in from
> Anatolia. These people could not have spoken "Berberish".

Only in the Western Mediterranean does the "Berberish" argument make
any sense. In the Eastern Mediterranean on archaeological grounds -
either the Semitic influence is late (i.e. Late Bronze Age or later),
or else it is chance and coincidental - take your pick.

> >Are there Semitic or any Afro-Asiatic traces in the ancient European
> >toponimics?
>
> I don't know. I know that others have theories on this. I believe

there is

> an "Atlantic" theory going around.

That Atlantic theory could be our Berberish. It makes sense
archaeologically (though perhaps not so far as early Germanic... but
who is to say, cultures tend to spread ahead of languages as Glen so
frequently tells us.

> Alexander:
> >As far as I know you believe that Proto-Nostratic community existed
> >somewhere in the Near/Middle East and PIE - in the North Pontic
>area.
>
> Well now, it would seem that I'm taking John seriously and imagining

an

> African origin for Nostratic. The PIE homeland though is probably on

the

> north shores of the Black Sea, yes.

Spot on!

> >It is given that IE and Etruscan (Tyrrhenian) are the closest
>Nostratic
> >brothers. The question - where and when did they parted? >If I

understand

> >you right, your answer is: Tyrrhenian went from the >North Pontic

area c.

> >4500 BC when PIE stayed there.
> >I'm afraid some difficulties with chronology and archaeology can
>arise
> >here.
>
> Well, I've narrowed down this Tyrrhenian movement from around 5000

BCE to

> 3500 BCE so I suppose we can debate about this a little more. I use

4500 BCE

> simply because of Kurgan I and because it is a perfectly medial date,
> wonderful for my evil linguistic purposes.
>
> >What do you (and other list members) think about the variant with the
> >parting of PIE and Proto-Thyrrhenian somewhere in South Caucasus c.
>6000
> >BC?
>
> 6000 BCE seems way too early for Tyrrhenian. According to Alan

Bomhard, the

> IndoEtruscan speakers would have arrived c. 5000 BCE to the north

shores of

> the Black Sea. He talks about Kosko and archaeological evidence that

shows

> that cultural influence spread from the Caucasian-Pontic zone to the
> Vistula-Oder area around 7000 BCE. However the direction of the

influence

> was then later reversed, which he views as a signal of the arrival of

the

> Pre-IE (or rather, IndoEtruscans) which pushed Caucasian-speaking

people

> back down south towards the Caucasus. (This is where he cites some

iffy

> connections between IE and NWC using ProtoCircassian, however his

idea may

> not be too nutty).
>
> Alexander:
> >The Thyrrhenian attestation of them does not
> >look improbable. BUT in this case we should expect a relatively high
> > >degree of similarity between Etruscan and Kartvelian (the only
>Nostratic
> >language in the Caucasus are then). Is there any evidence >of this?
>
> But this is the thing, I don't know of any Kartvelian words in

Etruscan. One

> would expect some loans if either Tyrrhenian moved through the

Caucasus as

> you say or if Kartvelian had a prolonged contact with IndoEtruscan,

neither

> of which seems to be the case from what I know. Perhaps this

"movement" is

> just a mixture of different non-Tyrrhenian languages and cultures.

And

> besides, if the Tyrrhenian moved by sea, we shouldn't expect to see

much in

> terms of land archaeology.

It also depends upon how quickly they moved, and the route they took.
If the movement south of the Caucasas was well to the west, and was a
rapid movement along the north coast of Anatolia (now below sea level),
the presence of Karvellian could have been largely avoided.

The Kurgan Wave I was seen by Gambutas as definitively IE. Are you now
saying it wasn't Glen?

Regards

John