>> Please, define what "fossil language" is. I do not see how this can be
>> an explanation of anything in any way.
>
> ==========
> I think Basque is what is left from the first languages spoken in western
> Europe, before IE languages flooded the place.
> A.
> ========
But where is the difference between Yeniseic and Basque then?
It is only in your personal premise that Basque is autochthonous
whereas Yeniseic is not. We could easily imagine the same scenario in
Siberia: Yeniseians coming first, before the region flooded the place.
;-) So this is not really an argument, since considering Yeniseic to
be a newcomer based on considering it to be a newcomer is clearly
circular (I am not saying this is the basis of your argumentation, to
be sure).
========
The basis of the argumentation is that macro-Altaic is most probably native
to that place as the people who speak them show very clear adaptations to
very cold climate (small nose, thin eyes, etc).
Yenisei speakers do not show that. They are not native to this place.
NB :
the traditional Yugh self-designation is : këndeN 'lightskinned-people'
A Ket legend tells of being pushed farther north up the Yenisei by kilikidze
(almost certainly the Kirghiz Turks). The same legend relates that "much
earlier" a people called the tysta (Anuchin 1914:1) drove the Ket northward
over "high mountains." (Dixit Vajda)
Where are those "high mountains" ?
A.
=======
>> Well, I disagree. Why would the burden of proof that Yeniseic is NOT
>> from somewhere else than where it is located today or from somewhere
>> else than the oldest records seem to suggest be on MY shoulders?
>
> =======
> Because the study of Hydronyms suggest that Yeniseic moved
Yes, but it is barely certain to what extent, how far, when, whence,
which part of it...we are still at the begining and need to do a lot
of further work.
=======
Right
A.
======
> Maloletko who collected these data seems to have a different point of
> view.
> (I have not read him directly)
I wonder whether we can acquire the paper in any way. I will ask some
friends of mine if they can help.
======
It's a whole book written in Russian...
A.
======
> Von Jenissejern, die einst nach dem Westen
> bis zum Kamabecken vorgedrungen waren, vielleicht zusammen mit
> uralischen Stämmen, oder von Urjenissejern auf ihrem hypothetischen
> Migrationszug
> vom Nordkaukasus über den Ural nach Westsibirien bis zum
> Jenissej, wie es A. M. Maloletko vermutet?
Interesting! That would - to certain extent - support the Starostinian
hypothesis, I suppose.
=======
What is the "Starostinian hypothesis" ?
A.
=========
> I add :
> Most of the western hydronyms are most probably Uralic but there are clear
> exceptions.
> Tobol : is-set fish-river
> Irtysh : balan-zas bird cherry tree river
> Ishim : ratsi-dat (impossibly Uralic)
>
> A.
> =======
Interesting. I wonder if we could assume a tribal union of
linguistically unrelated groups (we have had such groupings, so...).
=======
I don't think we need to make things more complicated than they are.
We have 5 languages and we can explain most of what we can see with that.
A.
======
> Autochthonous would mean that it may well be from the first language
> spoken
> on that spot 10^n k.years ago.
> A.
> ======
Aha, I see. The same for Basque in you opinion?
======
Yes
what indication do you have that Basque ever moved an inch ?
A.
========
> Only one, I'm afraid.
> A.
> =====
If you are right, this will change sooner or later. ;-)
=====
You are optimistic !
A.
=======
>
> The reflex of "sky, god" in Pumpokol is ec^
> If the word is from PIE 48 *ansu, as it seems to be !
Another piece in favour of your hypothesis?
On the other hand, consider this:
http://tinyurl.com/b9rdpf
=======
Only NC *amsu fits semantically,
and I'm not far from thinking NC is IE, as well.
A.
========
You still have not anwered my question: What is the Pumpokol reflex of
PY */s/, if /t/ is not???
Petr
========
Well, my last answer was a bit confusing.
It seems that :
- s with o (< IE *o or LW) or *u (< Zero grade or LW) > t
- s > c^ in the other situations.
A.