From: Flaviano Matos
Message: 71821
Date: 2014-10-13
Well, if you exclude Hittite, wouldn't that be called, "Indo-european"?Many regard Hittite as a "sisterlanguage" of PIE.
----Ursprungligt meddelande----
Från: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Datum: 2014-10-09 12:26
Till: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Ärende: [tied] Re: Reconstructed PIE vs. theoretical PIE (was: loading)
> I should have perceived that. I agree with you that *reconstructed* PIE is a little "fictional," despite that PIE as defined as the proto-language Hittite, Latin, Sanskrit, Greek, &c come from, is a well-founded theory.
I don't think so. In fact, Hittite (Anatolian) morphology is more archaic than the rest. In my opinion, the classical genealogical tree for modelling language relationship is a simplification, and in the particular case of the IE family a *huge* one. I think this family is the result of several (and often complicated) expansions and language replacement processes over several millenia. So actually there were not just one but *several* proto-languages.
By the way, find it very troublesome to reconstruct the PIE verbal system in a way that try to conciliate the classical IE verbal system with the Hittite one. As some have said down in this list, (Proto-)Anatolian is more like a sister language of IE, therefore, a reconstruction that serves both would require a step more to be suitable to to IE (non-Anatolian) languages.
======================= Flaviano Matos <rindolf> uwd: what's up? <rindolf> BTW, how has English become the official language of Singapore? <Altreus> Viral marketing