Re: Sos-

> One major and unescapable problem with making Yeniseic autochtonous

You mean 'making Yeniseic a substrate of Uralic'?

> is the massive typological difference between all Siberian
> languages, which are coherent, and Yeniseic.
> It's worse than Basque versus IE.
> You can claim that Uralic homeland is unknown,
> This is a rather comfortable idea to carve out a pseudo-homeland
> for Yeniseic,
> among Ugric and Samoyedic languages.
> but ultimately this does not stand on its feet,
> why is there clear indications Yeniseic used to be in Tobol and
> Irtysh valleys ?

So your argument is that if Yeniseian was a substrate of Uralic then
Uralic would be typologically influenced by Yeniseian and it isn't.
But if Yeniseian was once spoken in the Tobol and Irtysh valleys,
shouldn't the languages that replaced it there be typologically
influenced by it?

> You can't stabilize a coherent theory.
> And on top of that, you need to claim Yeniseic has been impervious
> to (lexical) influence by its Siberian neighbors for thousands of
> year.

Why?


Torsten