Re: Serbian - contemporary of Sanskrit



On Feb 13, 6:59 pm, fire.serpe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

No, I don't think it is childish. Do you think that the fact that
human beings all migrated out of Africa and went on to populate the
world is a childish theory, when it has solid basis in genetics?
Everything points to a common ancestry. There is nothing intrinsically
impossible in there being an initial tongue which changed in different
ways as people moved away from their source, to give birth to modified
versions of the first language (i.e. new languages).

I agree that former PIE reconstructions were wrong in many areas. But
this does not mean that languages being born from a much older, common
language is not valid.

I disagree with the statement that all IE languages must be of the
same age. Just take one look at modern English, and you will see that
it evolved from being a Germanic tongue with all its declensions to
becoming something very, very different today. Take a glance at the
Lord's Prayer in Old English alongside a comprehensible translation:


One natural language cannot be "born" from another "older" one. For
instance, could anyone say which one of the German dialects is
"older": Frisian, Frankish, Alemannic, Bavarian or Middle/Low German?
Being "born" implies a precise moment of "creation" and it implies
sudden existence and more or less quick perishing. Natural languages
are developing enormously slowly and therefore "invisible". We can see
a "grown up" natural language but we cannot see its "childhood".
English cannot be taken as an example of naturally (normally)
developed language because the conqerers of the British Isles mixed
their language with the language of native people to a great extent.

DV
.