Re: new book on the spread of IE

On Feb 22, 3:56 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 22, 7:02 am, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





"Franz Gnaedinger" <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:68e70e58-f601-4846-b85d-f3300194d446@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[...]

 Early PIE -- Ice Age language spoken in Eurasia,
 from Northern Spain to Malta in Siberia, center in
 the Franco-Cantabrian space

 Middle PIE -- center Göbekli Tepe, begin of
 agriculture at the base of the Karacadag some
 10,000 years ago, first mining and melting of
 copper in the Jordan valley and in Anatolia
 at the same time

 Late PIE -- spoken in the steppes between
 Anatolia, rich in copper, and Central Asia,
 rich in tin, giving way to IE with the casting
 of bronze, with bridles and taming horses

That's great, really is, you know where and when were
these PIEs spoken. No doubt, you are going to tell us
real soon what are your proposed linquistic features
distinguishing between them. When somebody quotes
a reconstructed PIE word we need to be able to identify
which PIE era he is talking about.

Of course. The Ice Age language used words of one or
two or three phonemes, and compounds that were not
yet connected, and a very rudimentary grammar, for

So, as recently as the Ice Age, the human brain had not yet
evolved????

How then, do you account for the obvious fact that Australians speak
languages indistinguishable in underlying structure from every other
human language, even though they were separated from the rest of
humanity millennia before "the Ice Age"?

example the doubling of a word as imperative, or
wishing form, for example SAI means life, existence,
while the doubled form SAI SAI means: may it be so!
Middle PIE knows connected compounds and more
evolved and developed grammar, Late PIE polished
compounds, whose origins are often hard to guess at,
and a still more developed grammar. Sound laws are
no strict laws, in the sense of Kepler's laws, Peter T.
Daniels told me repeatedly, PIE reconstructions are
still lucky guesses,

No. "Magdalenian" is guesses (whether they're "lucky" or not, there's
no way of knowing, as no "sound laws" connecting "Magdalenian" forms
with atteted forms have ever been offered).

PIE reconstructions are based on sometimes _hundreds_ of strictly
regular and systematic correspondences. (Which because of their
extreme regularity got dubbed "laws" -- though no one ever suggested
that they were _predictive_ like "laws of nature.")

and the PIE vocabulary varies
greatly from author to author.

Don't make up lies about "authors." If you are referring to something
in particular, produce it.

Middle PIE is reconstructed
by Colin Renfrew and others,

Bull***. Colin Renfrew is an archeologist (who repeatedly admits that
some day he ought to study historical linguistics) who has never
"reconstructed" a language (or a word) in his life.

Late PIE goes along with
the classic steppe theory according to Maria Gimbutas,
Anthony, and others. Will this do for the moment?
Pas de quoi. You're welcome.-
.