John:
>Whilst trolling the internet for Asianic languages (The neolithic
>substratum third source that Mallory and Diakonov identify between
>Semitic and IE, I found the following. Glen will love it - it raises
>the hoary chestnut of Japethic again. ;-)
"Love" it? You should know me better than that by now...
>I am not alone in proposing a language family intermediate between
>Semitic and PIE
I don't question the sources of your views. The premise is sufficiently
rational. In fact, Mallory mentions Semitic-IE interborrowings in the same
manner by supposing a third but hitherto mysterious source.
To be upfront, I find outright assertions (as opposed to speculations) of a
third source, as logically perilous, since it has never been physically
attested in writing. Physical proof is a prerequisite for assertion.
Ironically, though, I would seem to be in favor of a "third source" since
Semitish would qualify as such and I wonder what you're so fired up about in
the first place.
John:
>I.M. Diakonov and S.A. Starostin, 1986, _Hurro_Urartian as an Eastern
>Caucasian language_ -- peripherally mentions other such comparisons,
>for example, with Hattic, Etruscan, and the non-Indo-European
>component of the Greek vocabulary.
"Peripherally mentions...". Hence, this would suggest "not in much scholarly
detail". I'm satisfied with HurroUrartian being related closely with NEC. I
am also satisfied with some of what Starostin has done online, even if he
isn't a perfect saint. I don't trust Starostin's knowledge of Semitic or
other non-Caucasian languages based on the website he presents. Analysing
his reconstructive attempts of NEC which show an unclear phonological set, I
choose not to trust him to come up with the "big picture" - this requires
the ability to be fully ordered and to focus on a wide array of issues
simultaneously. If a phonology eludes him, doubtless would he fumble his way
through "Asianic", bringing together archaeology and non-Caucasian
linguistics together into a coherent essay.
However, I would extrapolate that this source assumes that NEC is our
"Asianic" substrate, yes? This, of course, could be true if NEC is as
related to Vasconic (Basque, Aquitanian) as I say it is. The problem here
though is about time frames and lack of serious data regarding Caucasic
influence on IE and Tyrrhenian languages. This lack of data requires
Caucasic languages to have only existed prior to agriculture in the area,
prior to 6000 BCE. I'm sure it's interesting as a sci-fi novel.
Even if I were to humour you, I believe that I have looked for the name
Starostin in my university library and came away disappointed.
>Brown, R.A., 1985, _Pre-Greek Speech on Crete from Greek Alphabetic
>Sources_ -- attempt to find features of (a) pre-Indo-European
>language(s) there, using borrowings in Greek, Cretan place names, and
>Eteo-Cretan inscriptions. Etruscan and various borrowings elsewhere
>are also discussed in it;
With all due respect, Semitic borrowings seem to plague Etruscan and IE more
so than anything ever mentioned about Caucasic influence. Your resistance is
without reasoning.
>Sorin Paliga 1989 and Martin Huld 1990, _The Journal of Indo-European
>Studies_ -- two articles on attempts to reconstruct some
>pre-Indo-European roots from European languages.
This could be intriguing, but the exact time-frame would be hard to
establish. We might be able to reconstruct a Caucasic term but associating
it with an accurate time like 6000 BCE or so would be difficult if we only
relate it to IE or to archaeology.
John quotes from some weird source again:
>Georgian linguist Niko Mari and German linguist Wilhelm Humboldt made
>first steps in this direction at the end of XIX and beginning of XX
>centuries. They found out similarities between Georgian and Basque
>language in Spain.
John, hear me out: Basque and Georgian are related as a tonne of bricks are
related to swiss cheese. NEC and Basque is the best relation one can come up
with. A relation between _NWC_ and Basque could even be entertained and
vaguely demonstrated. However, even Nostraticists agree that Georgian (which
is derived from "South Caucasian" or more properly "Kartvelian", which bears
absolutely no relation whatsoever to NEC or NWC, is more closely related to
AfroAsiatic or Sumerian than it could ever be to Basque. Give up the
pseudo-research and get thee to a library.
I refuse to respond to the rest of the nutty quote. It was muddled with the
most hideous grammar I have ever seen, not to mention problems in linear
reasoning. For one thing, its mention of a monolinguistic "race" either
shows the archaicy of the text or the incompetency of the author in
archaeo-linguistic studies. Simple deduction would lead most to the
conclusion that there may have been one language family but also most
certainly several physical types and cultures throughout the geographical
location.
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com