Re: [tied] areal and genetic groupings

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, x99lynx@... wrote:

> Piotr wrote:
> <<[Areal grouping] refers to a cluster of languages that are or

used to be

> close to one another geographically and which show common

_diffused_ features

> (as opposed to shared innovations inherited from a common

ancestor.>>

>
> Does this mean that languages not "geographically close" but

nevertheless in

> contact cannot be grouped together as areal?
> For example, if Yankee traders were in contact with Spanish

speakers on a

> particular West Indies island, would it be incorrect to classify

them as

> areally grouped even if New England and the West Indies Spanish

showed common

> diffused features? Or is the mere occasional presence of Yankee

traders in

> the West Indies considered "geographical closeness"?
>
> I'm always surprised by this geographical thing. Historically, the

majority

> of speakers of two languages don't need to be concentrated adjacent

or

> "close" to one another to have an influence on one another. E.g.,

the

> British and India. In prehistory, evidence of long range contact

might

> disappear, but prolonged mutual influence may have occurred over

well-used

> trade routes.
>
> I realize that linguists often use "contact" with a different

meaning. But

> wouldn't contact rather than geographical closeness be the real

criterion?

>

Which reminds me: if they had boats, is a home for the PIE-speakers
in the Pontic steppes or in Anatolia mutually exclusive? Could they
have lived both places, around the Black Sea?

Torsten