--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "S.Kalyanaraman" wrote:
> I agree, entirely. We have to be very careful relating language to
> writing or relating language to communities. William of Ockham said
> it in a powerful dictum: `Pluralitas non est ponenda sine
> necessitas.'(Plurality should not be posited without necessity.) I
> have tried to follow this dictum.
Ock's principle hardly applies to this case in the sense you wish.
Unnecesary hypotheses should not be present in the theory, and at
this point the hypothesis of those peaple speaking some PIE tongue
is neither required nor substantiated. You seem to favor the idea
that a couple of highly debatable circumstantial similarities could
account for relationship, without any crucial argument. Only in the
presence of a clear crucial proof one could reverse application of
razor's blade in the sense of eliminating non-relationship less
probable hypothesis. At the point we stand this is far from being
the case. Think about English having plenty of words obviously
similar with Latin and using Latin script, though not being derived
nor closely related with it. Think about Latin having borrowed some
words from Etruscan and their script, though not being related with
Etruscan language. Loaning a script and some words is no proof and
does not imply the necessity of relationship. Therefore, supposed
relationship remains eventually a work hypothesis, but still out of
the theory by the means of William of Ockham.
Regards,
Marius Iacomi