Piotr wrote
> BTW, I don't think the IEs (as a speech community) were "linked" with
> anything -- other than loosely and more or less accidentally.
Languages are > not necessarily tied to archaeological cultures, ways
of living and types of > husbandry, or to horses, for that matter.
I would agree, languages are not necessarily tied to anything. Yet
successful and widely distributed languages have a reason for being
"successful and widely distributed". Culture, ways of living, types of
husbandry and mobility (horses) are all reasons why some languages are
more widely distributed than others. So Piotr, given that, what was
the "motive" you see for the spread of IE... or do you think it was a
purely accidental "conspiracy of fate"?
Regards
John