Peter's description (see below) of each
reconstructed standard PIE word as a "snapshot" gives us a wonderfully precise
metaphor. Spot on! At this remove, linguistic scholars and students
can capture several moments in the early development of a particular word - but
only one of those moments can properly be labelled PIE. Words are always
changing. Figuratively speaking, a moment before the PIE moment, and a
moment after it, the selected word will have been just a wee bit different; and
we can't at this remove, identify all the differences.
Darwin's caution in saying "might well be able to"
rebuffs the charge of rashness, I think. If any of us managed to
pronounce one word exactly right, we would have been lucky. Still, we are
so often faced with claims of certainty (on this List and others) that we need
to take a step back once in a while and reflect on such claims. Certainty
is common enough - and tolerable enough, IF its ephemeral nature is
acknowledged. Sometimes, even the most scholarly of scholars are blind to
this nature - a fault that even the most diligent of peer-reviews sometimes fail
to notice. Here is a famous case in point. A while back, two highly
acclaimed and highly qualified academics - Vice-Chancellors of two ancient
British Universities - set out to calculate the age of Earth. Their answer
was accepted as an absolute certainty by their peers in academia and elsewhere,
for generations - and indeed is still accepted as certain by tens of millions of
laymen today, and thousands of highly qualified and esteemed academics stand in
line to confirm it. The Earth's beginning was stated to be 23rd
October, 4004 BC.
Well, religions are by definition based on
certainties. Sciences are based on premises, presumptions and
statistics; studies like etymology are based on extrapolations and
inferences. Yes, etymologists (professional or amateur) can have their
individual personal certainties, but nobody should expect them all to
be taken as permanent. They are of the moment. They are snapshots,
too.
Gordon Barlow
>>Were a
Proto-IE
>> scholar to be taken back several thousand years BCE to
the
>> Pontic-Caspian Steppes, he or she might well be able to converse
with
>> the nomadic cultures living there.
[Darwin]
>May I point out that there are
>no
fluent speakers of PIE around today. We can't even be sure on
the
>pronunciation of PIE. Can you say **for sure** that there were
voiced
>aspirates in PIE?
[David]
>I share your excitement over what historical
linguistics has achieved, but I
>can't share your certainty about our
results! There are so many areas of
>uncertainty that
remain. Furthermore, each reconstruction is a snapshot of
>the moment of splitting - and for each reconstruction that can be a very
>different time. There may never have been a single spoken language
>completely like our reconstructed PIE.
>Peter