Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor

On Sep 30, 12:44 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 30, 11:13 am, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:





On Sep 30, 8:08 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 30, 7:03 am, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Sep 29, 11:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 29, 9:03 pm, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 29, 6:16 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:09 pm, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 29, 3:01 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Would the (re)constructed "PIE" change in anyway if Iranian is
excluded?

If you subtract data and redo your analysis on the remaining subset,
the resulting analysis runs the risk of not being able to account for
the data you subtracted.

(This isn't guaranteed, of course.)
But thats what happened with Hittite/Tocharian/Luwian didn't it?  They
all changed our ideas of PIE or for that matter even its features on
being discovered.  But based on what Peter has written it looks like
PIE can be reconstructed ignoring Iranian and then Iranian explained
from the PIE that was constructed without it.

Sorry, how did you arrive at that conclusion? PIE is based on
comparing the reconstructions of PII, PIt, PGmc, PBSl, PCltc, and
internally reconstructed Gk and Alb; as time went on, they were able
to add Arm, Toch, and PAnat.

You asked how PIE would be reconstructed without taking into account
Iranian.

You didn't ask what would happen if the Iranian languages were
subsequently discovered. The answer to that is that they would be seen
to be intimately related to the Indic languages.

The Tocharian and Anatolian languages, however, are not particularly
close to any of the other attested IE languages,  so changes in the
reconstruction of PIE proved necessary.-
Putting aside the absurdity of Sanskrit actually being one generation
younger than Greek, Albanian Armenian and Tocharian in this scheme -

Hunh? All languages (except creoles) are equally old.

Irrelevant.  I was counting generations from a putataive source
language.

Don't be an ass. All languages are constantly in flux, and the only
"generations" that could be counted would be the generations of
speakers who learn the language in infancy.

No.  you can see language generations (real and mythical) on the
ubiquitous tree diagrams of hist ling literature.  And there must have

Those are schematizations designed solely to confuse stupid people
like you.

I am honored that centuries of hist ling research had me and my
cohorts in mind.



been epochs when languages of different generations were spoken by the
same biological generation of a speech community (e.g., Latin, English
and French in post Norman conquest England).

"Languages of different generations." Very funny.

Not funny - its just over your head, thats all.






the really interesting question (which doesn't appear to have been
considered in the available scholarly material) is a "minimal" set of
attested languages that can generate through reconstruction the full-
blown PIE beast.   If no such minimal set (there might be more than
one) requires Iranian then the fictional nature of PII can be revealed
beyond doubt.

Are you really _that_ incapable of thought?

Of course every newly discovered IE language adds to our knowledge of
IE.

That is correct by definition - it will describe to us yet another
innovation/devolution path of the putataive original language.

What is "devolution"?

what I was origninally getting at stands untouched by this reply.

You have not "gotten at" anything.

There must be a self-imposed limit on your part for adult, rational
posts in a thread - the devolution to infantile tantrums has already
started.  My set-theoretic notion has obviously gone over your head -
but still you did give me a useful data item for my upcoming book (for
which much thanks).

"book"?

one of these days.

What is "devolution"?

look it up.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... PIE can be reconstructed ignoring Iranian and then Iranian explained ... to be intimately related to the Indic languages. ... attested languages that can generate through reconstruction the full- ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... PIE can be reconstructed ignoring Iranian and then Iranian explained ... to be intimately related to the Indic languages. ... attested languages that can generate through reconstruction the full- ... one) requires Iranian then the fictional nature of PII can be revealed ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... PIE can be reconstructed ignoring Iranian and then Iranian explained ... to be intimately related to the Indic languages. ... attested languages that can generate through reconstruction the full- ... one) requires Iranian then the fictional nature of PII can be revealed ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... PIE can be reconstructed ignoring Iranian and then Iranian explained ... You didn't ask what would happen if the Iranian languages were ... attested languages that can generate through reconstruction the full- ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... PIE can be reconstructed ignoring Iranian and then Iranian explained ... comparing the reconstructions of PII, PIt, PGmc, PBSl, PCltc, and ... You didn't ask what would happen if the Iranian languages were ...
    (sci.lang)