I'll hesitate to say that you're hopelessly confused, Steve,
but you aren't operating under Occam's Razor at all.
When Hattic and HU are present and ONLY present in Anatolia
while only a **SINGLE** branch of IE stems from Anatolia,
the likelihoods are completely against you. It's your onus,
not mine, because you're working against the most efficient
solution.
In your previous analogy, Spanish (to be compared to Anatolian)
has overtaken South, Central and parts of North America as the
majormost language. However, native languages such as Yucatec
(cf. Hattic or HU) have not in any way taken a foothold in
Europe.
Bringing up an example that contradicts yourself is what I call
real confusion.
Now lacking any knowledge of the history of Latin, we would start
out with the equal possibility that Spanish originated from any
of the places it is found. However, the fact that Spanish is
closely related to Italian, French, Provencal, Romanian and
Portuguese (just as IE is more closely related to Uralic and
Altaic), which as a whole are focused in a relatively small area
of Europe (just as these IE-related languages are found well
north of Anatolia) shows that it could never ever be the case
that it originated from Argentina (nor could it be that IE or
pre-IE was ever in Anatolia).
Afterall, it would be senseless to think that the geographically
dispersed languages of the Americas all decided to convene in
Europe! Perhaps you should get out an atlas and compare the land
mass of the Americas with Europe.
>Hattic and Hurro-Urartian does NOT eliminate the presence of IE.
True as always, but who cares about the damn unicorns??
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail