Re: new book on the spread of IE

On Feb 10, 1:31 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ah, so by now you've read the book, and you know that he proposes a
certain solution?

I know from Mallory and Adams that he favors the classic
steppe theory brought up by Maria Gimbutas, he wrote
a paper on this topic in 1991 (if memory serves), and
obviously he spent a lot of time doing fieldwork in order
to reconstruct that lost civilization, which, amazingly,
left so little in terms of artefacts, and so much in terms
of language. By the way, Petey, once you told me
that archaeology got nothing to do with linguistics,
meanwhile you recommend an archaeological / linguistic
publication. Even you can learn. Very pleased.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: new book on the spread of IE
    ... Mallory and Adams on the one hand and the comment ... field work, ... You said it the other way round, Peterli, linguistics ... has nothing to do with archaeology, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Do Eskimos count like New Guineans?
    ... that I have NO expertise in linguistics, per se, ... Archaelogical evidence is always suspect, ... But this is a universal of archaeology. ... That's the number of AN languages they count, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Universality of Interjections?
    ... >> At this point in time, historical linguistics is simply much more advanced ... It was _not_ written in response to Renfrew's Archaeology ... > would have been genetic markers confirming this. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: new book on the spread of IE
    ... So, Frannie, you know that Anthony has not revised his opinion in the ... field work, ... You said it the other way round, Peterli, linguistics ... has nothing to do with archaeology, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Some European river names
    ... your own contrived language which cannot be employed to prove anything. ... Archaeology has nothing whatsoever to do with linguistics, ... If linguistics benefits from ... the sad fact is that I have seen other crackpot protolanguage ...
    (sci.lang)