Re: Origin of Sanskrit

Quote: "diasystems have no territorial limits, cf. Proto-Amerind if You believe in it"

It was a demonstration, not a comparison. Incidentally, the discussion was in this case upon IA, not even PIE, but please don't say "still worse", because this is a general argumentation.

The comparison between PIE and Romance (not only Western Romance) was about development in situ or not, not about size. Western Romance was compared to any IE class (e.g. IA).

In any case, comparisons are always partial, so anyone who wants to make them can choose among many different examples and even more different examples.

I'm trying to expose serious arguments. I've written general reasons. Do You believe only in Anthony's model? You're welcome, this doesn't affect the debate. Your honourable preferences don't make them necessarily the right ones, they're just preferences like mine.

2012/10/11 Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...>

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

> At 12:12:09 PM on Wednesday, October 10, 2012,
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > ONLY IF we postulate (postulate) that all IA languages go
> > back to a single PIA language we can discuss about the
> > size of such Homeland (and still I don't see any
> > demonstration on whatever side); if we postulate that they
> > don't go back to a single PIA language, PIA is necessarily
> > to be seen as a wide diasystem (diasystems have no
> > territorial limits, cf. Proto-Amerind if You believe in
> > it).
>
> I don't even see any reason to take it seriously.
>
> Brian

On the one hand listmember "Bhrihskwobhloukstroy" compares the size of PIE with that of Proto-Western Romance, and on the other, with that of Proto-Amerind. These two proto-languages are separated by 10ky!

I guess he should decide for one or the other, no?

Francesco