Re: [tied] A New language tree

mkelkar2003 wrote:

> The present model of IE languages is no longer tenable given the mass
> of archaeological/geologica'/astronomical/genetic data against it.

Sorry, Mkelkar, but the only kind of data that is of any relevance when
you build a family tree of languages is... surprise, surprise...
linguistic. External evidence becomes important when you want to
reconstruct _extralinguistic_ facts and events, such as ancient
migrations and their starting points. It plays absolutely no role in
determining linguistic relationships, which are inferred exclusively
from linguistic data.

> A
> new model has been proposed. Please click on langauge tree.doc in the
> files section. I propose a proto Vedic family branching out into
> Sanskritic, and Illyric/Dardic branches. The Sanskritic branch splits
> into Prakrit, Tocharian, Hellenic and Avestan brances. The
> Illyric/Dardic branch splits into Balto-Slavic, Illyrinan and
> Thraco-Phrygian. At the upper end the proto-Vedic is a branch of a
> the larger Eurasiatic family with Dravidian, Uralo-Altaic,
> Sino-Tibetan, European, and Austric branches. The European branch
> splits into Italic, Celtic and Germanic branches.

It's very easy to "propose" something. It's far more difficult to
propose something that makes sense and is worth discussing. You simply
hijack some of the legitimate terminology of historical linguistics
("family", "branch", names of recognised linguistic groupings), jumble
it up after your own liking, and then try to present the resulting
illogical hotchpotch as a novel contribution. I suppose some of the
people on this list will simply ignore it, while others will make testy
remarks about your obvious lack of competence. Don't expect any real
interest.

Piotr