Re: [tied] GLEN AND ANATOLIA IN 7500BC

PETER WRITES:
<<one of the main arguments raises the question of whether Anatolian IE had
lost what the rest of IE has, or whether the rest of IE innovated so much
after splitting from Anatolian. If Anatolia is the homeland, we have to say
either:
(1) all the groups that departed remained in contact sufficiently long
enough to develop all the stuff missing from Anatolian; or
(2) Anatolian IE lost all that stuff after the departure.

...(1) seems to demand an unlikely coherence for migrating groups, and we have
to explain both their contact and their deep differences.
(2) seems not to leave enough time.>>

Peter, these are pretty bad arguments.

There is NO prioblem with the idea that the Anatolian TRIBE stayed in
Anatolia and the OTHER TRIBE crossed over into Europe -- and that caused the
first branch-off of IE languages. There is no time problem in any of this.

Modern reconstructed *PIE INCLUDES the Anatolian languages. So where
*IE-AFTER-ANATOLIAN-BRANCHED-OFF went, after the branch off, has nothing to
do with the difference between the two initial branches.

I must insist that the linguistic evidence is that the various different IE
branchings DID NOT happen at the same time, but that IE was only divided at
first into two different languages.

In any scenario you posed, *IE AFTER ANATOLIAN BRANCHED OFF is in Europe.
The only difference in scenarios is that proto-Anatolian is either in
Anatolia, or it is elsewhere. What happens in non-Anatolian does not need to
change wherever we locate *PIE.

Both languages -- proto-Anatolian and the-rest-of-IE -- would have begun
innovating separately in theory at that point. WHERE this occurred is
totally irrelevant.

Anatolia is in no way eliminated by what you're suggesting. The exact same
problem arises if *PIE arose in the Ukraine or on the Danube.

The best argument -- and a good one, I think -- against *PIE being in
Anatolia is the limited spread of the neolithic between 7500-6000BC, after
which the Danube and Balkans supply better candidates for the spread of a
single language throughout most of Europe.

PETER ALSO WROTE:
<<Whereas a homeland outside Anatolia means:
(3) Anatolian IE lost all that stuff after it splits off from other IE
groups, that is, before and after it moved into Anatolia, or
(4) non-Anatolian IE developed all that stuff without having to move
anywhere, because it did so after Anatolian split off.

...(3) and (4) leave us time, and only requires one group to split off, and
doesn't require migrating groups to remain contact.>>

As I noted, Anatolia is a big place. At a time of low population density,
there is NO requirement that the split-off even had to leave Anatolia, much
less immediately splinter into different groups.

Any more than there is any requirement that IE-WITHOUT-ANATOLIAN splinter
immediately after Anatolian leaves.

It's totally consistent in theory that the Anatolian TRIBE stayed in Anatolia
and the OTHER TRIBE crossed over into Europe -- and that caused the first
branch-off of IE languages. There is no pure linguistic problem in any of
this.

Steve Long