---
x99lynx@... wrote:
> But the differentiation that comparative linguists
> would talk about would be
> within the confines of IE's "genetic" development.
> (Correct me if I'm wrong,
> Piotr.) In other words, the core question about
> distance between languages
> that have branched off from a common ancestor is in
> theory answered by
> features that demonstrate relatedness.
*****GK: My apologies for having expressed myself too
hurriedly. Of course I must agree that there was some
sort of "ancestral" language to all subsequent
attested families of IE. Whether this language was the
"reconstructed" PIE is another matter. And what
remains unclear to me is the time frame and location
of this language, as well as the manner of its spread
and differentiation. And, let's be frank about this,
the reason for its complete disappearance. Within
particular language families it seems less difficult
to imagine the primary or proto- language of the
group. But the processes which led to the emergence of
the various IE families were certainly much more
complex and convoluted. After all Greek, Indo-Aryan,
Celtic, and Slav are tremendously more different from
one another as "total" linguistic realities than
Italian, Spanish, Latin and Portuguese, or Polish,
Ukrainian, Serb, Russian and Lusatian.******
>(Steve) There has to be some unitary element of
spreading if
> our concept of language
> relatedness is going to be rationale. The problem
> of throwbacks and
> back-and-forths and areals and early IE with early
> IE substrates all
> complicate tracing the process. But its not really
> the origin point but the
> spread that makes any of this relevant. And the
> spread does seem to need
> some kind of unitary explanation.
*****GK: I don't see how one can avoid complexities
here, or seek to find some single determinant for a
process which almost certainly involved many such. And
as for "spreads" one needs to distinguish a number of
them. Again I see no need for a unitary explanation.
Various factors can be posited and tested. Peaceful
infiltration, competition, imitation. Climate changes.
Aggressive takeovers. There's really very little that
one can rule out as a motor.*****
>
> (Steve)Peter mentioned a value system, but I can
only see
> one common, observable and
> differentiatable value system arising in that area
> at that time. And that was
> the change in "values" that converted people from
> the lifestyle of eating
> wild things to raising their food themselves.
******GK: But communities which maintained a largely
"mesolithic" way of life cannot be demonstrated to
have gone hungry. And I find it quite interesting, for
instance, that the Pit-Comb culture only borrowed
ceramics as an idea from its neighbours, and did not
convert to either an agricultural or animal husbandry
economy.*****
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/