Re: [tied] Re: On Non-Linguistic IE Languages

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> ******GK: Why not? After all they all were IE
> languages. So all sorts of similarities would be
> expected. But to someone who doesn't live all day
> (and night) in the fabulous mansions of professional
> linguistics (hence to most ordinary mortals) the
> differences WOULD be enormous.****

> You surely realise how subjective such evaluation
> is. So how do you propose to make it part of a
> scholarly argument?

*****GK: By not doing the same thing you are. Viz.,
not "understanding" or not even responding to my
simple points [e.g. the need for collaboration between
various approaches in the solution of Indo-European
issues], and trying to fit them into the procrustean
bed of your own presuppositions, with an additional
sprinkling of semi-contemptuous "hopes" about my views
on Slavic and Nuristanic, and comments about my way of
seeing things reminding you of rather reactionary
Bible pounders. The last pretty ironic I think.*****

>
> > your arguments remind me of the mode of thinking
> > which negates evolution because no-one has seen
> a
> > new species emerge in historical times. Well,
> > 'istorical times ain't long enough.
>
> *****GK: Yes there's always something quaint about
> someone who decides to draw the "Hitler" or
> "evolution" stuff into what seemed to be a
> conversation.*****
>
> Did I really say "Hitler"? No offence, I certainly
> didn't intend to accuse you of anything reactionary.
> With this reservation, I don't retract the analogy.
> If you don't like the possible ideological
> associations, replace "evolution" with something
> more neutral like continental drift or anything that
> takes a lot of time.
>
> **** I would assume that the original PIE spread
> quickly and widely, and that the carriers
> thereof mixed with a great many non-IE
> populations. Which might explain the many abrupt
> divergences which arose in the earlier millenia
> compared to the latter ones. The early PIE carriers
> don't seem to have been chauvinisticabout their
> speech either, which helped*****
>
> Where is the evidence for that quick spread and
> such massive "mixing" as opposed to the ordinary
> course of differentiation?

******GK:(new) That's where the archaeology comes
in.*****

>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/