@sagas
It was relevant in that it provided more reasoning on the space and time of the development of PIE.
The development of proto-uralic was right there in the vicinity, at least based on the language-tree approach. The uralic sprachbund approach would make it a bit more complicated.
So even if you refuse to see how that article relates to the development of uralic and the co-development of indo-uralic, does not mean that other people won't reassess the past situation. And by 'reassess' I don't mean 180-degree turns, but more subtle realignments and build from there.
0
@sagas
It was relevant in that it provided more reasoning on the space and time of the development of PIE.
The development of proto-uralic was right there in the vicinity, at least based on the language-tree approach. The uralic sprachbund approach would make it a bit more complicated.
So even if you refuse to see how that article relates to the development of uralic and the co-development of indo-uralic, does not mean that other people won't reassess the past situation. And by 'reassess' I don't mean 180-degree turns, but more subtle realignments and build from there.