Re: [tied] On "Steppe"

Glen

> Language has nothing to do with technology. It's like asking: Why
> couldn't the spread of Steppe languages have taken the same path
> as the spread of Starbucks franchises?

What are "Starbucks franchises". We don't have them "down under"
(yet)! It is a "technology" associated with the North American
English dialect that hasn't spread here yet!

In arguing that technology has *nothing* to do with spread of
language, aren't you being a little ingenuous? English has spread to
its current situation because of the technology of the Industrial
revolution and European maritime colonialism. Romance languages
through Roman arms, colonia and road construction. Many see the Indo-
European advantage as due to the mounted warrior. Even Bomhard
suggests that Nostratic spread because of advances in technology due
to the mesolithic period.

> Yes {evil grin} I agree. Let's allow for "the languages to
> evolve as their current or recent historical locations suggest".
>
> Recent historical locations of Uralic and Altaic suggest epicenters
> for both of them in Western Asia, not Anatolia. As well, recent
> historical locations show that Indo-European languages have spread
> along a vast area whose apparent epicenter is likewise not in
> Anatolia but rather in Eastern Europe.
>
> There is nothing in history that suggests Anatolian origins for any
> of these language groups and long-range comparative linguistics
> seems to suggest Asian origins.

And Tyrrhenian seems to have spread from Anatolia and the Aegean, not
from the Pontic steppe (one could ask as you have - where are the
Tyrrhenian substrate toponyms for Southern Russia?)

All I am arguing is for a progressive splitting from west to east,
rather than you do from east to west. This makes more sense
archaeologically.

Regards

John