I always thought that the use of Indo in IE and PIE was a reference
to a parent language group that represented commonality between
Indic, Aryan, and common or formative Euro language groups. If indo
is not being used to indicate a relationship to Indic why is it used
at all? Now, Ed, you tell me that the reason Indo was used was not
to provide a descriptive phylum for the language that denotes its
Linguistic relationship? Is it being used only as a decoration or a
meaningless prefix? What is the logic for using Indo- in front of a
linguistic classification? Is this a code designed to indoctrinate
and guide the faithful and mislead the infidel. Please explain?
The Indo- prefix in Indo-European is simply a reflection of the fact that the
daughter languages of IE are spread throughout Europe and India. There is no
implication about exactly how and when Indic descended from IE, or where the
IE 'homeland' might have been etc. I repeat: the term 'Indo-Tyrrhenian' is
derived from the term 'Indo-European', and implies that there might be a
relationship between *Indo-European* (not Indic) and Tyrrhenian. Similarly
'Indo-Anatolian' and 'Indo-Uralic'. However, just to confuse you,
'Indo-Pacific' is a geographically derived term just like 'Indo-European' but
does not normally include 'Indo-European' languages within it. (Except maybe
by weirdos who think Indo-European and Austronesian are related).
Although not disputing that that it is in print. I've looked at the
Hellenic sources that deal with Pelasgic myself and it is more than
clear that they are referring to a language group that is related to,
if not the parent of, Tyrrhenian. They even make distinctions between
Pelasgic languages and other non-IE languages. The earliest Hellenic
sources; from the 4th century and before; from a period before
Pelasgic was dying out; that had first hand experience; point out
that although they did not know its relationship to their language.
However, they understood this language family was related Tyrrhenian.
In other words not all Pelasgic languages were Tyrrhenic, but all
Tyrrhenic language were Pelasgic. I can provide these sources if you
Is there a logical and simplified, or at least a single set of
terminology for IE and PIE or is that all too subjective and
Balkanized? As you may know, nearly all of the higher levels of
archaeological interpretive thought from the 40s, 50s 60s 70s, and
80s has been reworked, reordered, reanalyzed, and reinterpreted
several times. Still there remain a number of glaringly poor,
inadequate, and just so wrong dinosauric constructs lurking about in
plain view. Still, like it or not archaeology is becoming less
centric and more reliant on other disciplines including Linguistics.
That is one of the reasons I signed on here, and I have learned a
lot. I know the perpose of this group is not to amend my lack of
linguistic sophistication, however, it would prove helpful if a
relative, systematic, and nested analytical method was used.