Le mardi 28 avril 2020 05:52:40 UTC+2, Jack Heitman a écrit :
> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 1:56:15 PM UTC-6, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 1:23:45 PM UTC-4, Jack Heitman wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I am new to sci.lang- indeed also new to the general study of philology so forgive me of any rookie transgressions in my knowledge or understanding.
> > >
> > > In my research of Magdalenian culture, I have been unable to uncover much information regarding their spoken language. Most of the time I am eventually directed towards Nostratic and Eurasiatic families but I was wondering what opinion is generally held by academia..
> > >
> > It is impossible to say something definite on the language on the languages of Late Ice Age Europe
> > I would say some of the better work on Eurasiatic and Nostratic are suggestive but I would also go along with the mainstream view that it is very difficult to prove and sort out how much of the correspondences are just mere chance, a result of contact or genuine genetic relationship.
> Do you (or anyone in this thread) know of any sources that present the alternative views?
There are not that many people working on these issues of deep relationships.
Among those worth reading, though I do not necessarily agree with them, are Bomhard (on Nostratic), Bengtson (especially on Basque vs Caucasic) and the Moscow Starostin boys. I will immodestly add myself to them.
As a rule, all of them tend to consider that Basque is closely related to Caucasic (especially NE Caucasic = Daghestanian) and they consider that this group is not the same as "std" Nostratic (the macro-group that includes Indo-European).
In my opinion, the gap between Basque+Caucasic vs Indo-European is not as large and deep as the "communis opinio" (of the people mentioned above) holds.
Personally, I would bet that Magdalenian people used to speak a form of archaic Caucasic, ancestral to Basque.
One problem is that nobody has ever worked on reconstructing the ancestor of Basque and Caucasic. At present, we only have Bengtson's book on Basque that lists comparanda with Caucasic. It's not a reconstruction of the ancestor. It's comparative not etymological. And another issue is that not everything in Bengtson's book can be blithely accepted.
I've started writing an etymological dictionary of Basque in relationship with Caucasic, but this is only a work in progress at this point.
Besides, nobody has ever worked on sorting out substratic words in Western European languages that might be of Basquo-Caucasic origin.
For example, there's a well-known equation: Basque adar = Irish adarc "horn". People don't know what to know with that. There's plenty of other words like that.
Another point is the non-Italian section of Sardinian that looks substratic. These words have been listed and studied by Areddu, himself a Sardinian.
I think a serious review of Areddu's work is necessary to understand what to think of these words. I have a copy of his book, but I've not read it thru yet.
Another issue is that about half the words that exist in the non-Anatolian branch of Indo-European are probably not inherited from PIE and of adstratic and substratic origin. This mess (be it in Pokorny or Mallory-Adams) needs to be sorted out. I'm working on this, but sorting out 3000 pages of mess takes time.
Besides, we also have Etruscan. It seems that some features of Etruscan are Caucasic. For example, if we try to analyse the words Aprile, Maya and Acale (=June), a possibility is:
Aprile = *a-pr(a)-ide "first month"
Note that pr(a) is the same as PIE *per- => primus, first
Maya = second
The stem may-, mey- appears in a number of words that mean "four" or "two"
Acale = *a-kia-ide "third month"
From *ki "three".
If we accept this parsing, then Etruscan has the a-prefix of Caucasic.
Besides the ar-morpheme of plural clan > clen-ar is also attested in a number of NE Caucasic languages.
So on the whole, there's good reason to think that Western Europe used to be peopled by Caucasic or Para-Caucasic languages.
Hope this helps.