[tied] Re: The indo european "race"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> Alex:
> >Ahhmmm... which should be in your acceptation the definition for
> >"cultural"?
>
> An irrelevant query. The real question is

I'm not persuaded of the above.

> what is the definition of
> Indo-European[?]... Indo-European is a _linguistic_
> constuct

Agreed.

> and rational-minded people can all agree that Indo-European
> wasn't a single "culture", "ethnicity" or part of some centralized
> organization.

But why should they? Are you saying, amongst other things, that:

(a) There was no time when all significant Indo-European speakers
belonged to a single "culture". (For "significant", I doubt you
will ever count as a significant speaker of a Chinese dialect.)

(b) There was no time when all significant Indo-European speakers
belonged to a single "ethnos".

(c) I am irrational if I don't subscribe to (a) and (b)?

If you are, would you care to share your reasoning?

Richard.