From: mkelkar2003
Message: 53531
Date: 2008-02-17
>Theory', not as a discussion of AIT/OIT, which has been reclosed.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@>
> wrote:
>
> [I'm allowing this through as a discussion of the Uralic Continuity
>Whose claims are absurd will be decided. For now, it is clear that
> > At any rate, I believe I have shown enough possible ways to
> > reasonably reconcile the lexical exchange between the eastern IE
> > languages and Uralic with an Indian Urheimat scenario (Elst 2000)."
> >
> > M. Kelkar
> > ==========
> >
> > It does not account for Mordvin vrgas being a Sanscrit word
> > not an iranian word.
> >
> > We are not dealing with PIE / Uralic lexical exchanges.
> > But specific languages to specific languages.
> > This is why your approach is basically flawed.
> >
> > Arnaud
> =============
> There is a Uralic Continuity Theory which would elminate the need for
> migrations of Uralic languages and by extention IE languages
>
> M. K.
> =============
>
> The theory is highly dubious in the first place.
> And can't account for Samoyedic and Ugric positions.
> But I understand that your *absurd* claim for autochthonous
> finds some support in another *absurd* claim that
> Uralic comes from Ukraine.
> This theory makes the same absurd reverse split order
> as yours.
> Finnish is the end of the tree not the start.
>
> Arnaud
> ===========
>