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

On Aug 3, 8:51 am, "graph...@xxxxxxx" <graph...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 3, 2:37 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 3, 3:11 am, "graph...@xxxxxxx" <graph...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

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

Um, Gaul?

Of course not !.. Revise the History of Cesar's conquest of Gaul !!!

So M. Faucou, er, grapheus thinks Dacia was conquered before Gallia?

And which is more conservative? Um, French?


Yes, of course ! "Old French", which is the result of the Cesar's
conquest and of the birth in France of Latin dialects.

So what was "WRONG" about the assertion?

So was I not clear in stating the Grumach-Bonfante theory?

Rumanian is less conservative than French because its baseline was a
later variety of Latin.
.

Relevant Pages