Re: Indo-European Origins and Geography

> But you're talking about lots and lots of other subgroupings.
> You need to demonstrate each one of them with nothing but linguistic evidence.

But this is such a massive phenomenon I can point my finger on the map
and there you have it. Take Latin, for instance. Primitively speaking,
now we have it in Italy, France, Spain and Romania. These territories
are separated by the Pyrenees (hence, Spain), the Alps (hence, Italy
and Gaul) and the Balkans (hence, Romania). There's also a conspicuous
territory along the middle Danube that is now occupied by Hungary. I
think it was part of Panonia where "Panonian" vulgar Latin could have
been spoken before the Madyars arrived. It was never fully occupied for
some reason. Probably, it was just too good and was taken by someone
else, maybe Slavs.
Hopefully, I don't have to prove the relation of Roman languages...

2) Indic languages seem to be suituated neatly along valleys of the
Indus and Ganges.

3) Nuristan is sometimes called to be the place of highest linguistic
diversity. Why? Because on one hand, it was the only road to northern
India (Kashmir Province), on the other, the Hindukush mountains are
extremely high there, and every village is separated from another by a
mountain ridge, so we get as about many languages as we have villages.

4) Russia and the USA (esp Midland) are surprisingly uniform
dialectically because they are mostly located on continental planes.

5) As to the UK, well, Scotland and nothern dialects (Northumbrian,
etc) are located on the hills. So is Wales. Hence, the United Kingdom.
At the moment, I cannot account for the diversity of eastern and
southern dialects, but it's still one language there. Probably the
zigzaging shoreline and small rivers play a role.

6) Uralic languages split up into Finno-Ugric and Samoyed subfamilies
precisely because of the influence of the Uralic mountains.

There's lots of evidence, I guess. I don't even have to prove the
existence of Italo-Celtic. It could have been a unity that existed only
for a small time and left little trace but it just *had* to be there.
Otherwise, how in the world did the charioters and horse riders get
into Italy and France? Hiking across forests and canyons? It's
possible, but it's a huge change in life style. It's much more natural
to follow a river valley. So geography by itself is part of the proof.
And, basically, yes, I can infer the existence of a subfamily just from
geography. At least, with some doubt.

.

Quantcast