Re: 'dyeus'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@...> wrote:
> According to Stefan Georg, Yeniseyan was a "Eurasian" idiom.
> What does "Eurasian" mean when compared with neighboring
> Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus et al.? Is it to be seen sort of a
> "substrate" language if compared with the Turkic, Mongolian
> and Ugric idioms of the relevant regions?

It means ultimately related (North Nostratic), but lacking either the common descent or strong mutual interaction of the Altaic languages.

Richard.

Yeniseian definitely looks non-Nostratic compared to everything around it. I don't see the "trademark" *mi-*ti/*bi-*ti. What am I missing? I definitely don't want to diss Stefan, but why does he see it as Eurasian? Or is he just signaling its location?