Why does Glen keep getting me wrong?

Glen wrote of my reconstruction

> It continues to make NO sense linguistically. You've casually

dismissed

> Yukaghir, Gilyak, ChuckchiKamchatkan and EskimoAleut which are also
> important to this discussion. IE (or ITyr) is not distinct enough

from these

> other Steppe languages to warrant a seperate route at all and has

already

> been tried by many Nostraticists previous of dubious reasoning

skills who

> were more concerned with making direct links between IE and Semitic

(or AA).

> They didn't succeed. I doubt you will either.

As regards Gilyak, I have yet to see a convincing argument that they
are definitively Nostratic. They certainly seem to be independent
from all the neighbouring groups. Regarding Chuchki-Kamchatkan and
Eskimo-Aleut, these language groups no earlier than 4,000 BCE with
the
appearance of the Denbigh Culture in Alaska. The split had occurred
by 800 BCE (during the succeeding Dorset Culture Stage) as by then
Eskimo cultures spread across as far as Baffin Island. The Yugit
people (speaking Chuchki, continued to travel across to Alaska and
the
Aleutians down to modern times, and freely admitted that they were
"one people but different languages" with both Inuit and Aleut,
indicating a fairly recent split.

If these are definitively Nostratic languages, then they must have
developed very rapidly as a result of contact with the nearby
Yukaghir. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Yukaghir only
arrived in its current area during the late second millennium BCE
(from 1400-1000 BCE). The Yukaghir Ust-Bel'sk culture, linking
Chukots and Yukaghir people were ambush predators of deer at major
river crossings (eg. at the Belaya and Anadyr Rivers. It seems that
this culture derived from the arctic Pegtymel River culture who were
the first specialist arctic hunter-fishers, from about 1800-1300 BCE,
stretching across arctic Eurasia from the Lena River mouth eastwards.

The passage of these people was later concealed by the expansion of
the Kanty and Mansi Samoyeds northwards. Altaic languages too
streched northwards to isolate the Yukaghir, particularly the North
Turkik and the Evenki (Tungus) groups.

Thus it is not a case of Uralic moving westwards and southwards, but
rather a case of Yukaghir moving northwards and eastwards away from
the Grebenki (Ural Mountains) origins of the Uralic mesolithic
cultures.

Thus when you say

> Your scenario isn't sensible because all of the splits from

Nostratic right

> down to IE and other Steppe languages would occur in Anatolia and

the

> MiddleEast producing a completely outrageous linguistic cramping

with

> subsequent unlikely survival of ALL these languages in locales far

removed

> from their supposed source (??).
>
> To get this straight, you're saying that at a particular time there

were the

> following languages stuffed in the tiny Anatolian/Middle-East area

without

> any linguistic evidence whatsoever of their fantastic side-by-side
> encounters:
>
> Hattic, HurroUrartian, Semitic, Sumerian, Uralic,
> IndoTyrrhenian, Elamite, Dravidian, Kartvelian,
> EskimoAleut, Gilyak, Altaic, Yukaghir and
> ChuckchiKamchatkan.

Glen, come on, don't set up a straw man to knock him down. Firstly I
don't see Semitic as being present in Anatolia at any period prior to
the arrival of Akkadians under Sargon of Akkad. I don't see Uralic
as
being present in Anatolia either, nor Elamite or Dravidian. Elamite
probably developed in the Fars-Kandahar region, and Dravidian to the
south and east of this region. They were never present in Anatolia.

Hattic and HurroUrartian were probably either a single language or at
most a chain of dialects in the mesolithic period. Eskimo-Aleut
and Chuchki-Kamchatkan did not exist until long after, and not in
that
region (half way around the continent of Eurasia only). Sumerian
also
did not exist here - I have suggested (in earlier posts) that
Sumerian was originally a language that developed in the vacinity of
Bahrein, only entering Mesopotamia during the Ubaid period. Altaic I
have suggested developed out of Nostratic via a chain of cultures
stretching as follows

Zarzian 12,400 - 8,700 BCE led to M'lefatian culture
(10,500-9,000).
Further east Ali Tappah (9,000 - 5,000 BCE) led to Jeitun culture
6,000 - 4,000 BCE and hence via Hissar to 5,500 - 3,500 - the
Keltiminar This later group was undoubtably Altaic. Zarzian was
probably never anything but late Nostratic or early Eurasiatic.

Finally Kartvellian. I can find no evidence that they did not
develop
in situ in Georgia.

So in Anatolia we are reduced to IT, and a dialect chain of
Hattic-Hurro-Urartian. Not the rediculous mix you accuse me of. And
since IT developed out of Eurasiatic we see that across the middle
east from Anaolia to NW Iran there was a single language group out of
which eventually, as it spread north, west and east, other daughter
languages were to develop. As I said - it makes sense
Archaeologically and culturally.

> Sorry, this scenario can never be plausible without overdosing on

pills.

> You're ranting on, equating the neolithic revolution with IT

without
a clue

> about the languages again. It's not that simple. We can't expect

the

> relationship between language and archaeology to be that simple.

I'm
getting

> tired of saying this.
>
> >To try to get a pre-IE late mesolithic people from
> >north of the PIE area between PIE and Uralics down into the Balkans
> >before the kuban incursions that Gambutas identifies, is
> >archaeologically very difficult.
>
> I clearly said in the last message: Uralic-Yukaghir, 5000 BCE,

Urals. This

> might be hard for you to accept but Uralic wasn't always in the

same
area

> and had to have been from further east because of that unfortunate
> relationship you're neglecting with Siberian Yukaghir.

Uralic-Yukaghir isn't

> even my idea but already being considered by Uralicists (who

frankly
know

> alot more than I do on Uralic afterall). The area north of the core

Common

> IE area was certainly not populated by even Uralic-Yukaghir

speaking
people

> during 7000 BCE, silly! You're getting your time-frames mixed up.

Glen, you are here saying Uralic moved from further east because of
the Yukaghir connection. This does not hold up archaeologically.
Rather the Yukaghir moved east from the Ural area. Once again
(sigh) you have your directions muddled up. It is a pity that you
don't know more of the archaeology of these areas. See my note on
the
cultures above.

> From 7000 to 5500 BCE would see the spread of IT to the south and

west. By

> the time IE arrived at the Black Sea, core Uralic-Yukaghir arrived

only to

> the Urals but possibly there could have been a spread even more

west
taking

> over the old Common IT area (after Tyrrhenian had already left the

scene).

Sorry Glen, doesn't add up. There were no cultural movements from
the
north east to the south west in the period from 7000-5500 BCE. As I
have shown above, instead there is a clear cultural movement *from*
the south west to the north east at precisely this period. Once
again
you have cultures swimming against the tide of cultural movements.

> >Especially since this is the period of post glacial global

warming,

>and
> >cultures were moving from the south to the north, rather than from
>the
> >north to the south.
>
> Yes, in general, and there's nothing violating this tendency. When

the IT

> were north of the two Seas, Uralic-Yukaghir was spreading west to

the Urals.

> Uralic-Yukaghir was occupying the more northerly regions and may

have helped

> to push the IT south as it spread over the north.

Sorry Glen, this doesn't stack up. Instead, using the archaeological
evidence we have Uralic-Yukaghir spreading east over the Urals,
(not coming west), then swinging north into the Arctic and along the
Arctic shoreline to the Yukaghir. Thus, Yukaghir is a language which
is furtherest removed from the later Uralic languages, Samoyedic
(Khanty, Mansi) is intermediate and the Finno-Ungaric is the youngest
to branch out on their own.

Glen again wrote

> On the other hand, it's
> not necessary that IT as a whole moved south but rather that the

core areas

> that would produce Common IE and Tyrrhenian happened to occupy

southerly

> regions while the northern occupations were later overrun with

Uralic or

> later by a spreading IE population.
>
> At any rate, there ARE individual north-to-south cultural

migrations
in the

> area, including the one that would bring the IE to the Black Sea,

so
your

> objection is irrelevant because the general tendency for the IT

wasn't a

> movement southwards anyway but westwards.

Sorry again Glen, all movements were eastwards until the spread of IE
during the Battle-Axe and Kuban periods, well into the secondary
products revolution period of the middle neolithic.

To my point (John)

> >Thus on this basis IE would have developed in the Pontic Steppe
> >region between IT (in Northern Anatolia) and Proto-Uralic. I

would

> > >suggest that if this reconstruction is correct, there should be

more

> >Proto-Uralic connections in PIE than in IT.

(Glen writes)

> A fantasy. First, the Semitic borrowings make little sense in this
> way(Etruscan semph but IE *septm with *-t-??). Second, demonstrate

how

> Uralic is closer to IE than Etruscan.

There is clear evidence of PIE borrowings in Uralic. I know of no
evidence of any IT borrowings in Uralic... This would suggest to me
that Uralic and PIE were in closer proximity that Uralic and IT....

<Snip>

Glen again wrote

> The last point is that Etruscan still retains remnants of a stop

contrast

> (aspiration as in t/th) that has been completely lost in

Uralic-Yukaghir (as

> well as EskimoAleut, to which Uralic-Yukaghir is better relatable).

You're

> going to have to deal with this difference in phonology to make

this
idea

> work as well.
>
> Uralic-Yukaghir's differences are too many to shallowly entertain a

closer

> relationship of Etruscan to U-Y rather than to IE. In contrast to

many books

> written comparing Tyrrhenian languages particularly with Anatolian,

there

> are no books I've heard of that seriously relate UY to Etruscan.

Glen I don't relate U-Y to Etruscan in any way. From what you say,
rather it is you who suggests that IT occupied a position
intermediate
between PIE and U-Y.

> So, John, if you're the only one in the world to entertain this, I

would

> suggest that you heed my advise and really get acquainted with the

languages

> you're talking about because you're not going to obtain much

success
at

> putting these theories out without doing this first and you're

tiring me

> out.

Glen, please don't keep putting rediculous things into my mouth. I
have never entertained this at all.

> >I-T would thus have developed in close proximity to Hattic

(Southern

> > >Anatolia) rather than Uralic. I would see that
> >there would have been borrowings and cognates in this direction,

rather

> >than between I-T and Uralic. I think from the discussions we have

had >on

> >list on the topic of the -ss-, -nd-, -nt-, (macro-Pelasgaian
> >discussions) found throughout Anatolia, this is definitely the

case.

>
> Read up on Hattic, John. It's a wonderful synthetic language but

I'm
unaware

> of any regular -ss-, -nd- or -nt- endings in Hattic. The endings

are

> internal to IT. This has been convincingly discussed ad nauseum on

this list

> (and others) already. Read the archives too.

That is interesting, because I have seen that there are -ss- endings
in Hattic. Hattussas is a classic example! From place name analysis
we find many Hattic places have the same structure going right back
to
Sargon of Akkad's records (eg Purushkanda ,,,, -nd-, etc.) These are
Hattic to the core. Reading up on the Anatolian languages shows
these
features stretch the length and breadth of Anatolia... It is not just
a feature found in IT.

Glen, to correct the misapprehensions you keep constructing of what I
am saying I suggest you look at the maps I have uploaded in the
cybalist files.

Regards

John