Miguel:

>From a historical point of view, the only explanation would be
>contacts in Central Asia. Presumably, the NW and NE Caucasians once
>occupied the western steppe (7th/6th mill. Seroglazovo >culture?),[...]

I find this view troubling, of course. Even if so, the 7th
millenium would be too late. This certainly competes with
my own view that NWC and NEC, while we find them in close
quarters now, had totally different origins. I agree that NWC is
from Central Asia but I find NEC to be more native, more closely
related to HurroUrartian, Hattic and Vasconic (Basque) languages,
which afterall, is a traditionally held long-range view.

NWC itself would be closely related to SinoTibetan. This would
explain the common set of numbers between the two groups but it
still doesn't explain NEC's numbers if we are to presume
borrowing from NWC. As usual, Miguel needs to develop his rusty
ideas a bit more for them to make sense...

Also, I find it somewhat assumptive when it's believed
automatically that mesolithic or paleolithic peoples must not be
able to count. This isn't necessarily so.

Finally, as for the numbers I reconstruct in DeneCaucasian, this
is what I got since the last time I dwelled on it:

one *hu-ca
two *hu-k?u, *mn
three *hu-sul(mu)
four *li(mu)
five *piNu
six *rutLi
seven *sul-rit
eight *mn-rit
nine *h-ilgu (?)
ten *hmsi

Bon apetit.


- gLeN

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com