OT: IE relations & non-relations (was: Celtic/Germnanic)

Michael Adams wrote:
[snip]

> Well, closer to each other than to the other Indo-Europeans,
> such as the Germanic and Slavic.
Er?(Scratches head) What is closer to each other than to the other IE
langs?

> And then you have like Albanian.
Yes - there is Albanian. But what is its relevance here? I don't
understand.

> Hittites/Hurrians/Iranians and Hindi and Urdu (Sanskrit) all
> Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan.
Hittite (aka Nesite, Nesian) is Indo-European, but _not_ Indo-Iranian or
Indo_Aryan. As for Hurrian, it is not even Indo-European! It is related
to Urartian.

The Hurro-Urartian langs are agglutinative and not related either to
Semitic or to Indo-European. Some scholars think they are related to the
Northeast Caucasian langs, but this is not certain. It is likely that
_some_ of the later (1st millennium BCE) non-IE langs of Asian Minor
such as Pontic, Paphlagonian, Mariandynian, Cappadocian and Cataonian
are descended from this group.

But the situation is made more confusing in that another non-IE &
non-Semitic group of langs were spoken in the 3rd millennium BCE in Asia
Minor, namely Kasko-Hattic. It is more than likely that at least some of
the 1st millennium BCE langs listed above derive from this group - the
surviving evidence is not enough to make sure identification.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760