From: mkelkar2003
Message: 53595
Date: 2008-02-18
>And it is very scientific to speculate what languages were spoken
> 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
> >
>