> There is NO prioblem with the idea that the Anatolian TRIBE stayed in
> Anatolia and the OTHER TRIBE crossed over into Europe
Alas, even if you shout at me about the "other tribe", this idea cannot
stand up against the evidence. There was no coherent, single original PIE,
but a collection of dialects, with points of contact and differences. One
of these was Anatolian. You are suggesting that these other groups all left
Anatolia, maintaining their complex pattern of contacts and differences.
That seems to me less believable than the alternative, that one group left
the homeland (whever that was)and entered Anatolia.
> 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.
Shout all you like, it still can't make it true. You are assuming that
IE-without-Anatolian was a coherent single language. That just isn't so.
>IE was only divided at
> first into two different languages.
I'll let you have "two different groups, Anatolian, and non-Anatolian" but
not two different languages. Ther non-Anatolian is not a single language.
> What happens in non-Anatolian does not need to
> change wherever we locate *PIE.
In one scenario, we have groups speaking variant dialects, who somehow
manage to maintain their pattern of contact as they move - so that I-I
speakers never seem to have nuch close contact with Germanic speakers,
whereas Celtic speakers do; and Celtic speakers have contact also with
Italic speakers, but not with Baltic. Remarkable, for migrating groups,
don't you think? Especially since in your scenario, they would all have to
migrate at the same time.
>The exact same
> problem arises if *PIE arose in the Ukraine or on the Danube.
No - here it is Anatolian speakers (a fairly coherent group) who move. The
rest remain where they are, with Celtic speakers between Germainc speakers
and Italic speakers, and so on and so on. They don't move - just expand a
bit.
Peter