From: Tavi
Message: 68871
Date: 2012-03-09

--- In, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > In short, I think the current PIE model is an over-simplification of
> > reality,
> All science simplifies reality to some extent, but there is a world of
> difference between simplification and misrepresentation.
Then the current PIE model is a misrepresentation.

> > collapsing several diachronic and diatopic linguistic
> > varieties.
> If what you are trying to say is that PIE was in fact a heterogeneous
> sprachbund, such claims have been made before, discussed and refuted.
I didn't said so.

> > It's inadequate to explain the deep linguistic prehistory
> > (Mesolithic and beyond) and the relationships between IE and other
> > families.
> One cannot reconstruct ad infinitum. We can reconstruct PIE on
> comparative grounds and we can (more speculatively) say something
> pre-PIE thanks to internal reconstruction.
I'm afraid what you call "pre-PIE" is actually the deepest layer of PIE.

> IE studies have no ambition to reach a Mesolithic chronology
> (let alone going beyond it).
Unawarely to them, IE-ists have already done it when reconstructing PIE
roots such as 'bear'.

> If one day someone manages to convince the world that there is a
> relationship between IE and some other families, e.g. Uralic or
> Eskimo-Aleut, further progress may be possible.
I'm afaid this is bla, bla, bla from the ortodox theory.

> But the comparative method is applicably only as long as there is
enough inherited stuff to
> compare. While it has been estimated that *some* very common lexical
> items may have expected "half-lives" of ten thousand years or more,
> usable evidence sooner or later evaporates due to lexical replacement,
> cross-linguistic diffusion, etc. I doubt if wild schemes like
> Vasco-Caucasian, Dené–Caucasian etc. will ever be testable.
I disagree. The comparative method is actually able to reach very deep
chronologies. The problem lies in its incorrect application by most
comparative linguists.