From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61040
Date: 2008-10-23
----- Original Message -----
From: "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
>
>
> You here pretend to ignore that the linguistic hypothesis put
> forward by Lubotsky and Pinault is a recent one that tries to re-
> assess the question in a new perspective based on the inferred
> influence of some BMAC substrate language(s) on common Indo-Iranian
> and common Tocharian, whereas the scholars cited in the above two
> pdf's wrote in the first half of the twentieth century.
> "G.-J. Pinault, ("Une nouvelle connexion entre le substrat indo-
> iranien et le tokharien commun", _Historische Sprachforschung_ 116
> (2003), 175-189)"
>
> Regards,
> Francesco
>
I have not been able to see what Pinault wrote about this substrate.
but he used to defend the idea that Tocharian owes much to Uralic languages,
especially when it comes to the organisation of the local cases.
Some people (like Perrot) were impressed by the evidence.
Is this substrate not Uralic ?
What has changed in Pinault's views ?
Arnaud