As Steve rants about his precious, pet theory, I still don't hear
any logical reasons to SUPPORT IE or pre-IE in Anatolia yet.
An ignorant statement, not just because Hattic is really autochthonous
but because it DOES matter to what is being said about pre-IE:
>This makes statements like <<Hattic is more autochthonous than IE,...>>
>irrelevant[...]
You're living in a fantasy, Steve. I wish you'd wake up and smell the
overwhelming evidence against you. First off, Hattic is more autochthonous
than Proto-Anatolian for many reasons.
First of all, Hattic was put in a same position to Anatolian IE as
Sumerian was put in vis-a-vis Akkadian. We find that Hattic was made
into a ritual language while Hittite became the major language, just
as Sumerian likewise became a ritual language edging towards moribund
while the new Akkadian became the major language. We might also
compare this to the now-dead Coptic vis-a-vis Arabic -- Coptic, the
descendent of pharaonic Egyptian, is still used in the Coptic
churches of Egypt but Arabic has taken over as the living language of
Egypt. We _know_ that Sumerian was more autochthonous than Akkadian
which was introduced from the west. We _know_ that Coptic was in
Egypt before the advent of the ultimately foreign Arabic. Therefore
to believe that Hattic wasn't more autochthonous than Hittite and
other IE languages contradicts the predominant pattern in favour of
the unattestable. ??
We also know that the Anatolian branch has special loanwords from
Hattic and Hurrian that seperate it from other IE languages. So that in
itself says quite clearly that the fragmenting IE was NOT in Anatolia
by any means. To repeat, by 4000 BCE, IE was NOT in any way in Anatolia.
Hell, none of the reconstructed terms show a southerly climate either
despite G&I's crazy attempts! My favourite pseudoreconstruction is
the one for "monkey", personally.
So now that we got that straightened out, what you're fighting for, I am
guessing, is to have some pre-IE stage, between 7500 and 4000 BCE, in
Anatolia. (In itself, it's immediately inane because we have IE going
in and out of Anatolia like a yoyo. It's not an economical solution at
all.) But obviously you don't understand Occam's Razor and I'm going to
have to break it down into chewable points.
Besides the yoyo problem, I've already explained to you that there are
connections between IE and Uralic that evidently stem back to something
further back than 4000 BCE since both Uralic and IE are of the same date.
Words like "water", pronouns, and morphology all show their prehistoric
connections.
To say that a pre-IE was in Anatolia 7500 BCE automatically implies
that Uralic was also from Anatolia. But there are also connections
being proven between Uralic and EskimoAleut, particularly concerning
some kooky alternations of the plural between one marked in *t and
one in *i. Uralic and Yukaghir are probably even closer -- Newsflash:
Yukaghir is a Siberian language, very far from Anatolia. We also know
of connections to Altaic -- named after the Altai mountains of Central
Asia, not Anatolia. So we must have this ENTIRE set of language groups
coming from Anatolia!! And I'm afraid that it is outright impossible
for so many language groups to simply go east with nothing west but IE.
IE couldn't possibly have started spreading into Europe until around
4500 BCE, yet something evidently stopped it too from going west from
Anatolia for so long! Oh, I know, Steve, there musta been a big giant
glacier that covered all of the Balkans until 4500! Afterall, we don't
KNOW if there was really a glacier there or not because there were
no historical records and we weren't really there, right?
What on earth are you trying to prove?
To summarize, the following unnecessary assumptions exist in your
theory that don't exist in mine:
1. IE comes in and out of Anatolia _more_ than once
2. Hattic is NOT more autochthonous than IE (despite the
contradicting consensus and evidence to the contrary).
3. We must assume that not only IE, but Uralic, Yukaghir,
EskimoAleut and Altaic ALSO come from Anatolia despite
their strict northeasterly spread.
The above three points (and probably many more that I haven't thought
of yet) makes your theory logically inferior by Occam's Razor.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail