IE "Urheimat" and evidence from Uralic linguistics

[petegray]

>> (a) Unrelated languages do produce offspring - for example, creoles.

> But creolization has nothing to do per se with language mixing.

>> It has even been suggested that the entire Germanic branch of IE is in fact
>> a creole.

Please keep the example in the context of the discussion.   The suggestion
has certainly been made, and I agree with you that it now seems unlikely,
but nonetheless the suggestion is out there in the literature!   So don't
blame me for the fact that the suggestion exists.  Blame me for the way I
have used it as an example.   (And I admit it is a sidetrack, more
misleading than helpful!)

 I mean that creolisation / language mixing or whatever you call it provides
us with an example of a language which goes back to two ancestors, not one.
Germanic is clearly and certainly related to other IE languages.   If the
theory about it being a creole were true (note the subjunctive, indicating
unreality), then it would be:
   (a) related to other IE langs, and at the same time,
   (b) also related to some other original language, which had no genetic
relationship to the other IE langs.

Does it make sense in a situation like that - whether it is Germanic or any
other  language which is involved - to insist that "all related languages
descend from a single common ancestor"?

Peter