Steve:
>The descendents of the original migrants from the Middle East had been in
>Europe for 2500 years in 4500BC. By then they were Europeans. A strong
>strain of them apparently still exists in Europe today.
Perhaps that would be better worded as "A strong strain [of Middle-Eastern
genetics] apparently still exists in Europe today." The migration of
genes from the Middle-East into Europe merely correlates with agricultural
spread. Genetic migration is not necessarily indicative of a movement of
people. You must first prove this before you can claim anything further.
In fact, it's more likely that the baby-machines we call "neolithic farmers"
had some raised chances of passing on their Middle-Eastern genes with all
those damn kids. The poor, drop-the-third-baby-in-the-woods-and-keep-walking
European hunter-gatherers naturally didn't have a chance. So we don't need
any big movement of people to explain European genetics at all. I doubt any
languages were terribly displaced during this period, actually.
So as you can see, it has very very little to do with Indo-European as it
stands so far unless your name is Steve and biasly hop from assumption to
assumption.
><<They are not deemed to have been carriers of IE speech.>>
>
>Maybe they should be.
They shouldn't. I've already listed my reasons from lack of IE hydronyms,
to the autochthony of Hurrian and Hattic, to the inferiority of your
theory via Occam's Razor. How on earth did you miss all that?
But then, you have a habit of ignoring contradicting points altogether
and torment us by repeating your unfounded assertions over and over again.
>Would you know what that evidence is?
Please, for the love of God, ask your mommy and daddy about Occam's Razor
and come back to us. It is Occam's Razor that is the very "evidence" that
you keep asking for.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail