Re: [tied] Anatolian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
<grzegorj2000@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> I cannot think this way for the reason above. I see _similarities_

within

> language groups (= subfamilies, like Romance, Slavic or Indic) and
> differences between these groups. So, I imagine that what we call the
> Proto-Indo-Europaean was ONE language once, with some closely related
> dialects (or even so uniform as Latin must have been once), used

within a

> small area.
>
> > then we can understand both how
> > dialects can each have their own boundaries while
> > also recognizing that *some* of the features of one
> > dialect may overlap into other neighbouring dialect
> > regions (or even other language groups) by way of
> > simple areal influence.
>
> The model according to which that one, relatively uniform PIE

language split

> into many many dialects, equally related with each other, and which

finally

> formed nothing but historic attested languages, is incorrect. r

fluid model.

>
> Grzegorz J.
>

Fantastic! I think what you are getting at is the following:

If you cannot reconstruct proto-Anatolian how can you reconstruct PIE!


M. Kelkar

>
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
>