Re: [tied] Re: Gimbutas.

>>Thanks, Peter. I think Piotr will give some comments within a few
>>days. Germanic pronunciation seems to have changed more than
>>most IE languages. Perhaps this was one of the reasons why they
>>developed the weak conjugation, to make the conjugation of less
>>frequently used verbs more regular? But yes, their declension kept
>>a lot of PIE. If they had left the "homeland" much earlier than 3000
>>BC, wouldn't we expect to see more changes? Marc
>
>I read somewhere that one possible consequence of the glottalic theory for
>PIE is that Germanic could be seen as preserving most faithfully the
>original phonological system of PIE. In addition, given the parallels in
>Germanic and Hittite grammar, these two could reflect more faithfully the
>original grammar of PIE, and that the developments in Greek, Sanskrit etc.
>should be seen as the innovations.
>If this is so, it changes the focus. Perhaps PIE originated in Europe,
>extended eastwards to the steppes, underwent an evolution there and then
>speakers of this modified "Steppe" IE then migrated westwards again.
>Thus, the substratum of IE in Europe would be an earlier variety of the

same

>language. Perhaps, in this way one could explain how IE imposed itself on
>the European population.
>Just a thought. Cheers Dennis

An very interesting one, but not so likely IMO. The relatedness of IE &
Uralic suggests IE came from the East. Who knows?

Marc