Re: [tied] Re: Europeans descend from Basques...

Me:

>>Ultimately Uralic and IE languages _aren't_ native to
>>Europe.

Richard:

>1. Europe goes a long way East!

So it does. But I'm thinking in a period of 10,000 years.
Sorry about the confusion. Uralic is related to the
Yukaghir family originating from further east.

>2. Georgian is as old as Basque, perhaps older. I forgot it and its
>neighbours.

"Older" in what sense? And what's your point there?

>3. Piotr Giasowski for one favours a Balkan homeland for IE.

I know. I've come to that consensus as well for the
most part. However, I don't agree that IE was always
there. I believe that it slowly migrated to that region
between 7000 and 5000 BCE from a more northeasterly
position, personally.

>This model of a native group adopting farming early and
>then spreading through much of Europe would make IE a
>native European language family, with a Balkan or Greek
>urheimat!

Well, then we are redefining native according to European
borders then. They would not be native to Western Europe.
Even so, how long does someone have to be in a region
before they are "native".

>Also, what splits a dialect cluster into independent
>languages?)

A mixture of laziness, imperfection, seperation and time.

>The paper makes it clear that extracting numbers from
>the genetic data was not easy - the Neolithic immigrants
>were similar to previous immigrants!

Explain "previous immigrants"?

>As to Finno-Ugrian, has anyone answered Piotr's question
>about substrates in Scandinavian Finno-Ugrian? (I think
>the question of the Finno-Ugrian homeland probably belongs
>with the Nostratic group!)

The general consensus is a region west of the Urals for
the Uralic.


- love gLeN


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx