Re: [tied] Greek+Slavic

--- mkapovic@... wrote:

>
> Well, at the time of Mycenaean, some form of
> pre-Slavic (it was really
> still Balto-Slavic probably) surely had developed
> some peculiar
> characteristics.

*****GK: Of course. But Balto-Slavic is not Slavic.
And calling it "pre-Slavic" is not particularly
useful.*****

It is not very likely that Slavic

> remained the same as
> PIE while Greek changed so much in the same time and
> it's not very likely
> that BSl and Germanic, for instance, had been the
> same in that time.

*****GK: I see no problem with this view.*****

The

> analogy with French is not very useful, I'm afraid.

*****GK: It's only intended to point out that the
specifics of "national" linguistic identity are
historical, and with some luck (as in the case of
French) may be clarified to a considerable extent on
that plane. It's perhaps trickier with "Romance" since
that involves many units. I'd be curious to know your
take on the emergence of "Slavic" (not "Balto-Slavic"
or "pre-Slavic"). Is there any linguistic evidence
which can help to date its dissociation from
"Balto-Slavic" or development from "pre-Slavic"?*****

>
> Mate
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/