Knut:

>My main concern was actually how much transformation can infact
>ocure in a language in a short time.

Well... You'll continue wondering your entire lifetime, I'm
afraid. It's too vague a question to answer empirically. That's
where adding up the clues comes in.

>Therefore I do not think all those characteristics of IU root
>structure could have developed in just a short time just before
>early IU.

If IU means "IndoUralic" then we have a difference of thought.
For me, IndoUralic is completely synonymous with "Steppe".
Uralic, Altaic and IndoEuropean belong to three seperate branches
(Boreal, AltaicGilyak and IndoTyrrhenian), however I think that
they share some isoglossic features between each other due to
their proximity to one another. So Boreal shares features
with IndoTyrrhenian to the southwest (retention of both sets of
conjugational endings), IndoTyrrhenian shares features with
AltaicGilyak to its east (vowel harmony, verbal ablaut,
lenition of *-t) and AltaicGilyak shares features with the
more northern Boreal (eg: preservation of original vowel system
structure, delabialisation of labiovelars).

Since both Uralic and IndoEuropean are thought to have been
spoken around 4000 BCE, I would say that IndoEuropean and Uralic
are seperated by about 5000 years. (Steppe = 9000 BCE)

You mention "IU root structure" as if it were different from
Steppe root structure. Elaborate.

- love gLeN




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp