Pre-IE and migrations

Rick Mc Callister rmccalli at sunmuw1.MUW.Edu
Wed Feb 3 18:30:33 UTC 1999

	HMMM. Uralic was to the north of IE but not as far north as now.
As I remember, from what I read, it's generally posited at the line between
the steppes and the taiga --in far E. Europe.
I'm guessing that line was a bit farther to the south.

	The question is just how far south the line was at that time but
also far west the boundary went.

	If the line went west of the steppes into Poland, Slovakia, Hungary
or whatever. Both of you could be right. I have read --I forget where--
that the Saami are said to have once occupied all of Scandinavia --but I
don't know how accurate that claim is.

	But I fully admit my ignorance of the geography of that time.
	Any ideas?


>At any rate, back to IE and Anatolia, if IE were in Anatolia for such a
>long time, one would expect that Semitic, Caucasian or another non-IE
>Anatolian language would "do a number" on IE just as Rick McCallister
>describes Armenian's Turkic influence. Yet amongst all that contact over
>what would have been many millenia prior to IE, we can still connect IE
>to Uralic, a Steppe language?? It still doesn't sit well with me and I
>think for good linguistical reason.

>A European explanation is too far west because it doesn't take into
>account the linguistic ties to the Black Sea area, including that of
>North Semitic.


More information about the Indo-european mailing list