Re: Nostratic and IE (or "Sorry John, I'm being naughty again")

Glen re

> I apologize for my mr.-nasty-bear comments. I'm not emotionally

stable. I

> blaim my father's rampant alcoholism and strict, self-condemning
> religion for my imbalance. I also blaim Canada and the lack of

vitamins in

> pizza :)

Apology accepted (except I've become thick skinned from your
gruffness!)

Glen wrote

> Nostratic movements:
> Eurasiatic : Africa -> East (Fertile-Crescent)
> Kartvelian : Africa -> North (Caucasus)
> AfroAsiatic : remains in Africa
>
> Non-Nostratic movements:
> Vasconic : Anatolia -> Balkans

Hmm... I see Nostratic (after the split from Afro-Asiatic) as coming
out of Africa and splitting thereafter in the Middle East. Thus
Kartvellian and Eurasiatic were unified in the language of the
Kebaran-Natufians, splitting therafter. If I am getting you right,
you are arguing that the split between the two occurred before they
left Africa and two separate waves left here.... or am I being
obtuse.
With Elamo-Dravidian and Sumerian how many languages do you see
crossed the Sinai?

> What has not been taken into account? The cultural trends are

explained

> here.

Perhaps, but that does not relate to Urheimat. All Austronesian
languages lie to the south of Taiwan too, and none of them today are
found in Southern China! Yet that doesn't mean that we need to
centre
the Austronesian urhemiat in the Philippines?

> All the closest linguistic relationships to Uralic (4 groups) lie

to
the

> east from 4000 BCE onward, except IndoTyrrhenian. We must take the

most

> probable theory.

Exactly - a theory which gives the origins to the language that
develops the mesolithic cultural traits that enable them to survive
east of the Urals.

> >Glen, I don't argue that Uralic languages were ever spoken in
> >Anatolia. [...] It is quite probable on the evidence I feel that
> >they spoke a language that was either "late-Eurasiatic" or
> >"Proto-Boreal" on your schema.
>
> Still not likely.

Maybe. But show cultural/linguistic evidence to the contrary?
Remember we are talking of a period 9,000 -5,000 BCE. Much can
happen
in that period.

To my post

> >2. Altaic languages show a feature that suggests that the further
> >east you go the more you find Nostratic like features modified and
> >diluted. Thus if Japanese is an Altaic language (and not an
>Austronesian
> >one), then it is furtherest from the proto-Altaic core.

Glen wrote

> Wrong, in fact Korean appears to retain some archaic features of

Altaic and

> Nostratic. Also, Armenian has very little to do with IE anymore and

look

> where that resides. Would you like to place the IE homeland in

India
or

> Greece then?

Since you are so keen to prove that Uralic languages have nothing to
do with the Urals, and Altaic have nothing to do with the Altai -
where do you see the Urheimat for these languages? Let me know and
I'll check out the cultures for you to see if your reconstructions
fit. Fit a little better than putting paleo Tyrrhenian north of PIE
for instance.

> >by what route did the proto-Altaic languages travel from

proto->Nostratic

> >in Africa? [...]
> >
> >1. Via the Middle East-Iran-Turkmesistan to the Altai and regions
> >north and east from 18,000 to 5,500 BCE
>
> Correct, Steppe migrated between 12,000 and 9,000 BCE. Dravidian

also

> started to migrate at this time to India.

So Steppe too started in Africa in your scheme of things?

To my question about Yarmukan Neolithic language Glen wrote

> Semitish, I suppose. The ancestry of Yarmukan is not a good

indicator of

> language. If they arose from the Natufian who arose from the

Kebaran, who's

> to say that the language didn't spread differently such that they

ended up

> speaking an early Semitic tongue. Semitic's long-lost "Yukaghir",

perhaps.

Hmmm. Interesting thought. Personally I like to see them as an
extinct version of Nostratic (having Nostratic come out of Africa
before it splits).

To my post

> >Glen, I am not strong linguistically, but when Semitic linguists

tell

> >me that proto-Semitic fragmented only 3,300 BCE,

Glen wrote

>
> What linguist told you this? Akkadian was already seperate by then.

The

> EncBritt speaks of Akkadian in 3100 BCE retaining Semitic

laryngeals
which

> slowly disappear in the next millenium.

Check out Enc Brit on the Afro-Asiatic languages.

Regards

John