From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61046
Date: 2008-10-23
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> ===========
>
> I was of the impression that languages have multiple substrates> e.g.
> Spanish has Celtic and Iberian substrate.
> And there are surely substrates of substrates.
> I see substrates as layers, as in soil --but if you insist that substrate
> is the same thing as foundation, we might have an argument.
>
=============
ok,
but Iberian seems to be the "ultimate" substrate,
I mean the very first one to be on the spot.
I don't think any of Uralic or "macro-Kartvelian" qualifies to the
"ultimate" substrate of Tokharian.
This leads to a very very complicated scenario of language overlapping.
Arnaud