Re: A question...
- From: Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:26:46 GMT
me wrote:
Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
[..]
On the basis of the features of each of the reconstructed families
within the Indo-European phylum, features of Proto-Indo-European can be
reconstructed, from which the daughter-family languages can plausibly
have developed.
Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
Gibberish is never able to be grasped. You are confusing "language"
with "family of languages" and using them as being synonymous, which
renders what you say to be gibberish.
An artificial construction of a "language" does NOT make it a "family
of languages".
You allegation has been that this reverse engineered
artificial/theoretical "language" of Indo-Iranian is a devolution from
a prior Indo European language. You say it uses the II language as a
base to reconstruct the PIE to show it is a PRIOR or superior language
to II.
Prior doesn't imply superior; who considers Old English superior to Modern
English?
Oh come on.... first is always superior to second, that is why first
gets gold, but second only gets silver.
Now, let's consider the possibility that PE and PII were sister
languages. (why the I in PIE if it's not a parent of PII)?
If we do consider that they are sister languages then how on earth can
you say one SIBLING is a PARENT to the other sibling??? *IF* on the
other hand you do really intend to say a Parent (the P in PIE is for
"parent" right?) and PII is the offspring (why does that too have a P
in that case?), then PIE MUST have come "first" - only Peter Daniels
has denied that in the past - and cannot prove it did so now either.
Being sister
languages (being related), they have a common ancestor.
Now you are talking - this does make sense - if it was left at that.
Even without
reconstructing this common ancestor language, the most immediate ancestor
language may be called PIE (make it PIIE if you prefer) since it's the
common ancestor of PE and PII.
There you are, calling one "sister" the mother of the other "sister"
once more - it is quite IMPOSSIBLE. It doesn't matter if relates to
human reproduction or languages it remains IMPOSSIBLE.
Only this is utter nonsense, as you CANNOT say which way a
change has occurred - or that one THEORETICAL language was the "first"
language.
What flaws can you find in my above reasoning that PIIE (or PIE for short)
is an ancestor of PII?
I think I have already identified it and need not do so again.
This is what you said previously: ""Pre-Proto-European" is one way to
refer to the language that Proto-Indo-European developed out of" -
ibid. YOU are a victim/perpetrator of this false dogma that says -
anything worthwhile has to have originated in Europe.
Interesting point. Note, however, that there are European linguists who drop
"European" rather than drop "Indo".
....and there are vastly more who who do NOT drop "European".
These linguists use the term
ProtoIndoUralic to refer to their postulated ancestor of PIE and
ProtoUralic.
So *IF* that is the case then PIE and your "ProtoIndoUralic" (whatever
that is) must be synonymous and I cannot accept that.
The "Homeland" of the Uralic group of languages is deep in Asia. Like
it or not, the location of the language "homeland" is important. It is
nonsense like that that makes it important. From West to East you have
the homeland of IE, next is II and a further over still is the Uralic.
For any Uralic languages to be at all related to IE they would be (A)
in the same location as IE but separated by time (B) VERY close to the
location of the IE.
Are these linguists Indocentric Europeans?
India has it's own egocentric mob who claims "original" is in INDIA -
only they are also wrong.
Are these linguists
saying that the speakers of PIU were Indian and Uralic people and
originated in India and the Urals? Are they even saying that PIU was
something "worthwhile"?
There is no such thing as "PIU". The Uralic languages did NOT
originate in the "Urals" (meaning Ural Mountains) in any event - nor
are they limited to that region at all and are probably the widest
spread languages on this globe - geographically speaking.
So is language PART OF ethnicity? Of course it is,
"Of course, English is part of Indian ethnicity"?
I did not say that, and it is a FALSE to allege, even by implication,
it is a quote from me - BUT it is indeed part of the Indian culture
today and it IS one of the official languages of India, which does
indeed forms part of the ethnicity....... unless you are attempting to
insert "ethnicity" as a synonym for the mythical "race"!
[text has been deleted from this point by previous poster]
denominator. So were there IE people
Then, there are English people and Indians (or a subset thereof) are one of
the English people.
The Common Indo-European "language" (or dialect group) most likely was
spoken by peoples in Ukraine (north of the Black Sea), and of course its
speakers arrived from somewhere else, but we don't have linguistic
information about prior stages.
Ahhhh.... so there IS an IE homeland after all...... talk about having
bi-polar views :-)
Still I say you are wrong on that score - it was further to the EAST
straddling the Eurasian border due south of the Ural mountains, with
about equal amounts both sides of the border.
AFAIK, nothing rules out the location you suggest but nothing makes it
certain either. That is, PIE might have formed entirely in Asia or entirely
in Europe; nothing makes it certain that its region of formation was
divided in half by the Urals.
It does, archaeology tends to point to it being so but I admit there
is nothing totally definitive in the way of proof of it being so.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Prev by Date: Reconstructing the Argo
- Next by Date: Re: Anatase
- Previous by thread: Reconstructing the Argo
- Next by thread: Climate deterioration and land-use change in the first millennium BC:
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
