[tied] Re: Woof

> All this, of course, raises all sorts of questions about the

validity of

> identifying proto-languages with archaeological cultures and
> technologies (pottery, axe styles, etc.). Even if van Driem is

right

> about the Sichuan homeland and about the relative autochthony of

the

> linguistic proto-lineage of ST in the area, that's still far from
> claiming that the ST dispersal took place ca. 11500 BC. At this

time

> depth we may be talking (_very_ conjecturally) about a PP...PST

stage.

> Van Driem's own classification of ST gives "basal" status (near

the root

> of the tree) to a number of languages like Newari, Magar (in

Nepal) or

> Qiangic (a whole minor branch recently identified in NW Sichuan).
> Kusunda (in Nepal, probably extinct by now), if ST at all, may

represent

> another early offshoot. If one were to use the "maximum diversity"
> argument, the oldest primary branches and the most diversified ST
> languages are found not so much in China itself but "in and near"

Assam

> and the eastern Himalayas, perhaps including parts of Burma and

Sichuan.

>

As I understand it, van Driem thinks the Sichuan culture stayed Meso-
in Sichuan, and started its dispersal by branching west to North
East India around 7000 BC. That might also explain why there are two
major varieties of rice, Chinese and Indian: the immigrants didn't
bring seedlings with them, but recognised a promising wild cousin in
their new home.

The maximum variety argument would place the urheimat of West
Germanic in Belgium, between German and English. Used together with
phonology, it would place the urheimat of the Romance languages on
Sardinia (which it didn't receive a large influx of Greek-speakers).


Torsten