Re: Sos-

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:05 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Sos-


>
>
>> One major and unescapable problem with making Yeniseic autochtonous
>
> You mean 'making Yeniseic a substrate of Uralic'?

=======

The issue is not limited to Uralic
And that's the major problem with making autochthonous a language family
that shares nothing with its neighbours.

A.

=======


>
>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>