I am surprised this Paleolithic Ural continuity stuff is still
discussed out here. Somewhere on cybalist I read a claim that it
would have gained ground 'in all uralic speaking countries' (can't
find that quote now).
As for Finland nobody as I am aware of seriously discusses this any
more, at least not among linguists. It was som 5 years ago that this
was a hot subject. Petri Kallio has now on the contrary made a good
case for bringing Proto-Uralic slightly closer to present by one
millenium or so,
http://www.kotikielenseura.fi/virittaja/hakemistot/jutut/kallio1_2006.
html based mainly on Indo-Aryan loanword evidence.
It is really useless 'Noahism' to speculate what languages were
spoken 10.000 years ago.
Jouppe
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > [I'm allowing this through as a discussion of the Uralic
Continuity
> Theory', not as a discussion of AIT/OIT, which has been reclosed.
> I've therefore taken the liberty of changing the subject title. -
> Richard.]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralic_Continuity_Theory
>
> "The theory questions the validity of the chronology for the many
> Uralic loanwords from the contiguous Indo-European and Turkic
languages."
>
> M. Kelkar
>