IE "Urheimat" and evidence from Uralic linguistics

[Stefan Georg]

>After all, when presented with a new language, what's the first thing we do
>to determine whether it's IE or not?

>We look at the numerals from one to ten, the family relationship terms, and
>so forth.  Later on more detailed examination is necessary, but that's the
>first step.

That'd make Thai Sino-Tibetan (or Japanese, for that matter), but it isn't.
Or it'd make a lot of languages what they aren't (if only in the first
step). It may be even *my* first step when presented with completely new
data, but I'd insert some further steps *before I write down what I "found"
in the first step* and rush it out to publishers (no personal snide
intended, I have in mind other people than those present here ...).

>In fact, that's how the fact that there _is_ an IE family of languages was
>discovered in the first place.

Sorry, but that's not how the fact that there is an IE family of languages
was discovered in the first place. The fact that there is an IE family of
languages was discovered in the first place by looking at cognate verbal
morphology.

Best,

Dr. Stefan Georg
Heerstraße 7
D-53111 Bonn
FRG
Tel./Fax +49-228-691332