--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Etherman23" <etherman23@...> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
Even if a significant percentage of his lexical comparisons were
correct, by no means it wouldn't imply a genetic relationship (actually,
I consider Burushaski to be a Vasco-Caucasian language). Interestingly,
Cassule's proposed PIE-Burushaski sound correspondences would classify
the supposed IE lexicon layer in Burushaski as Paleo-Balkanic, and more
especifically as being similar to Phyrgian.
However, given the role of the Balkans in the European Neolithic, I
think possible these lexical isoglosses could be explained by a VC
adstrate in Paleo-Balkanic IE. This would be also the case of Whitaker's
Euphratic, a pretended pre-Sumerian substrate IE language.