Re: Graeco-Armeno-Phrygo-Thraco-Macedonian

Piotr writes:
It would not occur to either of us to question the
well-established fact that Greek, Armenian and Albanian are
all Indo-European languages. That much was demonstrated
beyond reasonable doubt in the mid nineteenth century. But
in linguistics, as in biology, there are various levels of
relatedness. What we are discussing is not whether e.g.
Greek and Armenian are related AT ALL, but whether they
constitute a subunit within the larger IE family; or, to put
it more precisely, whether the two are more closely related
to each other (in terms of common ancestry) than either of
them is to other IE groups. Fortunately, this is not a
political question (not for Mark or me, at any rate) but one
that can in principle be resolved by means of objective
linguistic reasoning.

Gerry here: Thanks Piotr for clarifying this point. And I understand
the similarity between biology and linguistics in that both have
taxonomic structures. Now if you and Mark discover that Greek and
Albanian are more related to each other than to any of the other
subgroups of IE, then what? Will Greek and Albanian become more related
to each other than to any other of the languages within IE? And will
this help the Greeks and Albanians to better like each other?
Anyhow, good luck to both of you in your linguistic reasoning.


Piotr: The problem is analogous to the reconstruction of
phylogenetic trees in biology. Nobody disputes the fact that
raccoons, giant pandas and bears are all members of the
taxon Carnivora. But a few years ago it was hotly debated
whether the giant panda was more closely related to raccoons
and koatis (Procyonidae) or to bears (Ursidae) WITHIN the
Carnivora. The now prevailing view is that the giant panda
is a true ursid; and most former defenders of its procyonid
status have changed their minds on this issue.

Gerry here: But couldn't one simply look at the giant panda and SEE
that it was more closely related to Ursidae than to Procyonidae? Or are
there folks out there who think a panda is more similar to a raccoon
than to a bear? Perhaps it has to do with the area around the eyes?
You know, Piotr, this entire thing of comparison and contrast really
treads on thin ice, huh.

Piotr: Different folks are entitled to different views as long as
the available evidence is not yet compelling -- that's
normal in any science. My current opinion is that Greek and
Phrygian are closer (I mean PHYLOGENETICALLY closer, not
merely more similar) to each other than either is to
Armenian, but I wouldn't be so dumbly narrow-minded as to
cling to this view in the face of incontrovertible evidence
to the contrary. All our theories are working hypotheses,
not ultimate truths.

Gerry: Pardon my stupidity, but is the country of Phrygia still
around? And if it isn't, then haven't the people of Phrygia been
incorporated into a more contemporary group? And if that is the case,
then isn't the language of Phrygia extinct? Or does a language of
Phrygia actually exist? If so, are there books written in Phrygia? Are
classes taught in the Phrygia language? Or is the area once called
Phrygia now planning to secede and reconstitute itself into a full blown
country?

Piotr: Since you mention politics:
Political considerations play no role in our current
taxonomic dispute but become all-important when it comes to
demarcating closely related living languages and deciding if
some form of speech is a "distinct language" or a "dialect".
When linguistic differentiation is not yet complete,
apparently distinct languages are linked by a continuous
chain of transitional dialects. Linguists, to their
embarrassment, are often asked to pronounce upon "language
or dialect" controversies (as in the recent debate on
Ebonics), but all they can do is list LINGUISTIC arguments
for and against either solution. The ultimate decision
involves non-linguistic factors like ethnic sensitivity, the
social and political functions of the languages/dialects in
question, loving or hating thy neighbours etc. The Serbs and
the Croatians, or Hindi-speaking Indians and Urdu-speaking
Pakistanis prefer to regard themselves as using different
though mutually comprehensible languages. On the other hand,
you would certainly experience acute comprehension problems
when talking with a native speaker of rural Scots;
nevertheless, your variety of American English is regarded
as belonging to the same language as Scottish dialects. The
unity of English, however, is a cultural and political
phenomenon, not an objective linguistic fact. So far, the
various English-spreaking nations have found it prudent not
to sever their linguistic ties. However, if Scotland seceded
from the UK (perish the thought), Stadard Educated Scottish
might suddenly be promoted to "national language" status for
political reasons. Why not? Any dialect with an army and a
navy may be called a language.

Gerry: And here is where the truth lies. Any dialect with an army and
navy can be called a language and any language with the best army and
navy can be called the best languge and the one that must be spoken
around the world.

Piotr: Note that in biology too it's often impossible to draw
universally accepted division lines between "species" that
haven't undergone full speciation. Mercifully, we don't have
to listen to the opinions of the organisms being classified.

Gerry: Yes, even with Neanderthal, is it Cro-Magnum or AMH or both or
neither. And supposedly Neanderthal hasn't been around for years! One
thing I keep remembering is something that Alekseev said: "the more one
studies languge, the more complicated it becomes". Shouldn't it be time
to resolve the language family issues for IE?

I'll begin with IE:

1) Iranian
2) Indic
3) Greek
4) Albanian
5) Armenian
6) Slavic
7) Baltic
8) Germanic
9) Celtic
10) Italic
11) several extinct groups of which Tocharian and Anatolian are the best
known.

Perhaps you and Mark might like to modify this but if not then possibly
these languges could be listed alphabetically and IE could stand as is.

Gerry