Re: Asian Migration to Scandinavia

--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...> wrote:

> From: Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...>
> Subject: [tied] Re: Asian Migration to Scandinavia
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 8:45 AM
> Arnaud asked:
>
> > 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?
>
> No, it isn't Uralic. It is a Central Asian substrate
> that Lubotsky and
> Witzel identify with the non-IE language(s) of the BMAC
> people -- a
> Bronze Age one. Witzel even hypothesizes that such
> language(s) may
> have belonged in the Macro-Caucasian phylum along with NW
> Caucasic,
> Burushaski etc.

. . .
Yes, I saw that but the problem is that he accepts Bengtson uncritically. Bengtson may well be correct in the long run, but we'll never know unless and until he cleans up his act and moves from mass com to reconstruction