From: Rick McCallister
Message: 61044
Date: 2008-10-23
> From: Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud@...>I was of the impression that languages have multiple substrates> e.g. Spanish has Celtic and Iberian substrate.
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Asian Migration to Scandinavia
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 1:35 PM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick McCallister"
> <gabaroo6958@...>
> >> 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
> >
> ===========
> The first issue is how can Tokharian (or any language) have
> _two_ substrates
> at the same time ?
> I'd like to understand that.
>
> Arnaud
> ===========