From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 62235
Date: 2008-12-21
----- Original Message -----
From: "Koenraad Elst" <koenraad.elst@...>
>>
>> In other words the old system is Uralic
>> P1 -n- (PIE -m-)
>> P2 -k- (PIE -t-)
>> P4 -m- (PIE -nos-)
>> P5 -t- (PIE ywos)
>>
>
> So, no genetic relation between IE and Ur, all common words and
> isoglosses betwen some IE and some Ur languages are due to borrowing?
=========
I did not say IE and URalic are unrelated,
I consider they do not belong to the same primary branch,
Many words in Uralic are unrecognized LWs.
For example atskol "a step"
What about PIE at- "walk"
Sktr at-iyati
*ot-sk-olo- > common Uralic *atskol
A.
=======
>
> Just for the record, without asking you to argue your point as it is
> outside the list's subject matter of IE, where do you stand regarding
> Ur-Altaic and Ur-Dravidian relations?
> > Thanks,
> > KE
>
=========
I tend to think that Dravidian, KArtvelian and other substrates between them
are probably related,
but I cannot deal with that extensively.
The problem is not so much "reaching down" as the excellent Mr. P. G says,
but "reaching too big".
I've got enough to handle already.
The perimeter of Altaic is unclear,
I think Turcic, URalic and Chinese are close relatives,
but I don't know how Mongolian can be satifactorily plugged on that.
I have never looked at that question.
In any case, I don't think "Altaic" and Dravidian are especially related.
A.