George Knysh:
>Thus could ancient IE have been such a combination, which, once established
>began to "live on its own" with further modifications not as global and
>intensive as the ones which originally might have produced it?
Hmmm... Well, I'm sure many list members think me insane but
this temptingly treads on my Semitish theory which is thus: Due
to the influx of agriculture starting c.6500, a group of people
speaking a Semitic-like language rose into Europe, becoming,
at least temporarily, predominant linguistically. Semitish would
have not only affected Old IndoEuropean (7000-6000 BCE) to a
drastic degree but other languages as well like Tyrrhenian and,
probably much later, Kartvelian.
Piotr has understandably argued that many of the verbs that I
suspect to be Semitish loans are "basic" verbs. Roots like
*?es- "to be" and *?ed- "to eat" are among my list. However, I,
for one, doubt that early stages of IndoEuropean used any verb
at all in equational sentences (much like the situation in Arabic
or Swahili). Thus, the adoption of a "basic" verb such as this
is easy. We might also enquire into the exact definition of "basic
roots".
So, in all, I do think that there was a lot of influence at least
from Semitish in the past, however, still I don't think we can
call IndoEuropean a creole language. It would appear to inherit
and preserve much of its ancient character as well as absorb some
newer influences (just like any other language).
- love gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp