From: Etherman23
Message: 69861
Date: 2012-06-22
>While it's difficult to say for sure without seeing Casule's argument, from what I've seen of both lexicon and morphology there's no obvious relationship.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Max Dashu <maxdashu@> wrote:
> >
> > Ilija Casule of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, says that a
> language spoken by about 90,000 people in a remote area of Pakistan is
> Indo-European in origin.
> >
> >
> http://www.npr.org/2012/06/20/155454736/pakistans-burushaski-language-fi\
> nds-new-relatives
> >
> > "the vocabulary that corresponds with Indo-European is core
> vocabulary, names of body parts, basic verbs, basic adjectives and also
> grammatical endings... And it corresponds systematically. That's the
> most important part. Every word you find has to have a systematic
> correspondence with all the rest of Indo-European."
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> Despite the press article, Cassule's theory isn't new and it's flawed:
> Burushaski can't be an IE language because it haven't got a bit of IE
> morphology.