Re: Proto-Uralic?

On 30 June, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:

<snip a very informative post>

> > I've also heard that there was no real Proto-Uralic per se, or that
Proto-
> > Uralic was a pidgin or creole that resulted from other languages.  I
don't
> > think that I agree with that.  My main thesis in my reconstruction is
that
> > earliest Proto-Uralic was mostly or entirely an isolating language.
> > By 'earliest' I mean 6,000 B.C. or earlier, LOL.
>
> My own impression is also that Proto-Uralic had not quite as rich a
> morphology as modern Uralic languages such as Finnish or Hungarian have,
> though it wasn't exactly isolating.
    At a time depth of 6000 or more years, is it possible to tease out
the creoles, their component langs, and their effects from the
"naturally developing" langs? If so, how would one go about doing it?
    But then again, since pidgins and creoles are "contact" phenomena,
wasn't the human population density at 6000+ years ago too small
for creole development?
    Moving further back in time (and further out on a limb  ;-)  )
could there have been Human-Neanderthal creoles which have left
traces in today's langs? Any way to know? (What an interesting
idea for a conculture! )

    Comments, anyone?


Dan Sulani
---------------------------------------------------------------
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a

A word is an awesome thing.

Reply