---
markodegard@... wrote:
> Piotr, along with what seems to be the majority of
> respectable
> commentators, place the separation of Anatolian from
> the rest of IE
> quite deeply back in time. This means Anatolian and
> the rest of IE
> each enjoyed long periods of independent
> development, uninfluenced by
> each other.
****GK: The scenario is basically plausible but can't
be too water-tight because of the geographic proximity
of the complexes. We also need to take into account
(and Piotr certainly does for his
purposes)archaeological evidence and historical
evidence (when it becomes available). What we're
exploring (obviously only in the way such things can
be "explored" in brief postings) are various
relationship scenarios. What preconditions might best
(or equally well) explain the development of the
situation which existed in the mid- 1rst mill BC when
Anatolian IE texts emerge.*****
> The horse did not attain its overarching IE
> importance until after
> domestication. The consensus is that the Anatolian
> branch did not take
> part in domestication, but rather, learned about it,
> and adopted
> domestic horses afterwards.
*****GK: This is where we have to be cautious about
"deep time lines". The current archaeological evidence
(pace Renfrew and his school)is that the horse was
domesticated by 4000 BC. While we need not postulate
lightning like spread of the "new technology", it
strains credulity to think that the proto-Anatolians
would have had to wait a couple of thousand years
before they learned about this. Or developed the
notion of "foreign donkey" while still to the west of
the Bosphorus. But it's not only a problem concerning
the "horse", but also the "wheel" and the "wheeled
vehicle". Perhaps more, but at least that. I think
that the idea of substantive vocabulary shifts after
the move eastward can explain a lot, independently of
the problems posed by the archaic grammar. The idea is
worthy of being explored as thoroughly as contrasting
alternatives. Collaboration of many sciences is
essential. Linguistics, archaeology, history,
ethnography, mythology etc., on their own won't manage
I expect.******
>
> I suspect the situation with the various equids
> *before* domestication
> was rather like the situation with cervids in
> English: we make do with
> one word, 'deer', and add an adjective as needed
> (e.g., whitetail
> deer). Afterwards, a whole suite of distinguishing
> terms emerge -- but
> it's as if these terms developed at or just after
> breakup.
*****GK: Sounds right to me. Good evidence for
it.*****
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com