george knysh wrote:
> *****GK: I'll leave it to others to comment in general
> on the continuitas item linked above. I can say quite
> confidently that 4.4.IV is wrong, sometimes laughably
> so. The suggestion that a Slavic/Turkic divide existed
> on the territory of Ukraine in the IVth mill. BC is
> embarrassingly incompetent.*****
Of course this completely static view of general history contradicts
what we know from _historical_ sources. There was no Anglo-Saxon
colonisation of Great Britain, because Great Britain has been partly
Germanic-speaking since time immemorial (4.5c), right? There have
"always" been Slavs in the Balkans (4.5e), right? The fact that the
former Roman Empire is largely Romance-speaking is just coincidence --
it was "Italoid" since the Palaolithic (4.5d), right? Why doesn't the
author go the whole hog? Perhaps Pre-Columbian North America was also
part of the Germanic area and the rest of the New World has been Italoid
since the first Proto-Hispanics came over from Asia during the
Pleistocene? But why propose _any_ migrations at all? The most
parsimonious hypothesis is that we were all created in situ and haven't
moved at all. Sorry, but that stuff isn't worth anyone's time.
Piotr