Re: On Non-Linguistic IE Languages

--- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> --- ikpeylough <ikpeylough@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > ****GK: ...... It would be even more helpful if you
> > > demonstrated on purely linguistic grounds how it was
> > > possible for so many IE families to arise in the first
> > > let's say 2500 years of the saga, and why we haven't
> > > seen anything similar occur in the last 2500 years.
> > > Something went wrong with "purely linguistic"
> > > dynamics?****
> >
> > The distinct families didn't arise in the first 2500 years,
> > only distinct _languages_. The process is the same in both
> > periods. It's only the _additional_ 2500 years of
> > differentiation that creates the families, retroactively.
> >
> > IKP
>
> *****GK: Of course not.

Why do you say of course not?

> Whether or not there were linguists capable of classifying
> languages into internally related related clusters at the time
> (similar though not identical to the clusters of 2002 AD) the
> differences between e.g. Greek, Hittite and Indo-Aryan were
> already enormous in 1500 BC, and an "Anatolian" cluster
> certainly existed.

I wouldn't say the difference between Mycenaean Greek and Vedic was
enormous. Even Sanskrit and Classical Greek ca. 500 BCE still have a
lot of grammatical similarities.

> After the appearance of proto-Germanic, proto-Baltic and
> proto-Slavic (all some time before year zero) I see no further
> "creation" of such clusters, just further differentiations within
> them.*****

Well, I don't see any "creation" of "clusters" _anytime_, not being
a creationist. If I understand what you mean by clusters, I think the
apparent clusters simply reflect that we have much better records of
some dialects than others.

IKP