[tied] Re: A New language tree

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

> At 11:43:02 AM on Saturday, May 7, 2005, mkelkar2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> > <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> >> mkelkar2003 wrote:
>
>
> No. You completely missed the point of Richard's comment;
> indeed, you essentially inverted it. The point is that
> shared changes can look as if they derive by inheritance
> from a common ancestor when in fact they do not;

Then the situation is even worse than I thought. If there is no
gurantee that shared changes come from a common source what to speak
of changes that are not shared?

>
> > One has to assume that the original language had
> > them (archaisms?) that were preserved in one brach but oh
> > so conveniently were lost in the other.
>
> Since just this sort of divergence can be observed in
> historical times, your rhetorical 'oh so conveniently' looks
> pretty silly.

It is raining water right now. A million years ago it was raining acid.

>
> > Or they are "later" innovations. But there is a thrid
> > possibility. Those dialects do not genetically belong to a
> > family at all. The Nichols/Garret wave model is in action.
>
> Eh? Garrett is talking about convergence of closely related
> dialects.

What I meant was there is no genetic relation. It is just a mirage.

>
> >> PIE *a, *e and *o fell together as *a in
> >> Proto-Indo-Iranian, but traces of the old distinctions
> >> are observable
>
> > Or what was together elready expanded later as Misra has
> > shown in the case of the Gypsy language.
>
> Only to those who believe that water spontaneously flows
> uphill, I'm afraid.

I am sure even the Gypsies are not capable of working such miracles.

>
> > The Sanskrit system could be and inmho IS the origina.
>
> But by your own admission you're incompetent to hold an
> informed opinion.

that is why it is a "humble opinon."

>
> Brian

M. Kelkar