Re: Minerva-paper on the Phaistos Disk : The main argument

On Jul 30, 5:02 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 25, 7:46 am, António Marques <m...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

graph...@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
Here is a good link about Tovar's ideas on the Risch-Chadwick Theory
: <http://www.varchive.org/dag/dialect.htm>

I'm not an expert in greek, but I'd be surprised if linguists offhand
considered any earliest attested variety of a language [group] as the
ancestor of all the other forms of that language [group]. Early tamil
isn't equated with proto-dravidian, nor sanskrit with proto-indic. Only
where a given dialect spread so much from its original home that it
differentiated into a whole group (cf. latin) does such a possibility
rise (i.e. early latin as the ancestor of all the romance languages).

Or, as Grumach and Bonfante have it, the different stages of Latin as
it spread across Europe were the ancestors of the different Romance
languages. Whichever region was colonized first has the most
conservative language, whichever was colonized last has the most
innovative language.

Now, Crete wasn't certainly the original home of the greeks, so it's
questionable that mycenian could be the ancestor of all of greek (it
would still be possible, since Crete was after all a place from which a
language could spread geographically).

WRONG assertion !.. e.g. French v/. Rumanian. Guess which country has
been colonized first !...
grapheus

.

Relevant Pages
Loading