Alexander:

>I see your position as the following (I apologize in advance for
>some intentional exaggeration to sharp points of divergences):
>
>- Only pure linguistic data are important for reconstruction of
>ethnolinguistic evolution.

No. "Linguistic data is the most important for reconstruction of
_linguistic_ evolution. Ethnology is secondary to linguistics on
this linguistic forum."

>- Any facts from other disciplines (archaeology, mythology, ethnology,
>anthropology, paleobiology, physical geography etc.)
>are not relevant.

No. "Facts from other disciplines have some merit to linguistic
origins as long as the main facts are linguistic in nature."

>- Languages can travel separately from ethnic units; ethnic units
>are not connected with economical way of life and therefore with
>archaeological cultures; etc.

No. "Languages can travel seperately from ethnic units; ethnic
units can be connected with the economical way of life and also
with archaeological cultures, etc, but not necessarily so."

>- The reason of human migrations are not cognizable principally.

I'm not sure what this means.

>Now I formulate my position, my model of early ethnogenesis processes
>(with some exaggeration too):
>
>- The behaviour of human populations (tribes) with various cultures
>(what includes type of economy; spiritual life - mythology, customs,

I know exactly what the problem is here. Please reread the snipped
quote above. What are you talking about? Are you talking about
linguistics? It doesn't seem so. What are you talking about? You're
talking about ethnology. What list is this? This forum is the
Nostratic list. Nostratic is a linguistic study, not an ethnological
study. This doesn't mean that ethnology is irrelevant by any means,
but it does mean that the main focus must always be linguistic.
That's just logical afterall. Language first, ethnology later.
If we were talking about ethnological origins, we'd focus primarily
on ethnology. However, we're talking about linguistic origins.

So... What is your main linguistic point about Nostratic? I think
I said earlier that I don't see any strongly reconstructed
terminology demonstrating early agriculture amongst Nostratic
speaking peoples. I'm sure the archaeological evidence on this
matter must also be equally sparse.

>NWC on Volga ...
>Do you have some arguments to place them there?
>I'd expect to meet them somewhere in Asia Minor.

I feel NWC has linguistic connections with other SinoDene
languages and can be traced back to a proto-SinoDene c.10,000 BCE.
In my view, SinoDene is ancestral to SinoTibetan, NWC and NaDene.
Now, if this is so, NWC _must_ have travelled from C.Asia to the
Volga, eventually settling in the Caucasus area. There are
similarities in pronominal systems (*se "I"), numerals
(*baryet "eight") and some vocabulary I've reconstructed
playfully at various coffee shops (*celek?we "mouse, squirrel").
In fact, I'm suspecting that the latter word *celek?we was borrowed
into Steppe as *sirk:u by about 9000 BCE. Just an idle thought so
far.

>BTW, on your another map (Black Sea Area 6000 BC) you place
>Kartvelian in the SE part of the Pontic basin. Any suggestions -
>why so? The Early Kartvelian region is a dark spot for me.

It seems to be a dark spot for everyone. This is my suggestion
for the record. If I recall there is some archaeological basis for
a movement of people into the Caucasus at around 5000 BCE. This is
the time at which I think Kartvelian had entered its present
location from the west and it also is just in time for the Euxine
event coincidentally.

>So I think you may put them in a more South position. The closer
>to Burushaski the better for the conception, if I understand it
>right.

Hmm, interesting. I'll look into that.

>If drawing maps is a symptom of madness I must be locked in the
>next cell to yours.
>BTW my favourite background is the map of natural zones.

Strange :)


- love gLeN


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