Re: [tied] Greek+Slavic

--- P&G <G&P@...> wrote:

> > Of course it [=Slavic GK]
> >> existed somewhere at the
> >> same time as Mycenaean Greek.
> >
> > GK: What is the evidence for this? Linguistic
> I
> > mean, since there is none from archaeology or
> history.
>
>
> I don't know what you mean by [Slavic = GK].

****GK: It's [=Slavic (specifying your "it" and "GK"
means that George Knysh (=me) added the bracketed
stuff to your text for greater comprehension of the
snipped item], not [Slavic = GK] which is indeed
meaningless, but which is yours.*****

> The evidence for the existence of Slavic (oh
> alright, pre-Slavic) at the
> same time as Greek, is that
> (a) Slavic exists today
> (b) Slavic has inherited a whole bunch of stuff from
> PIE, as well as making
> innovations, so its origins are connected to the
> origins of Greek.
> (c) The best explanation for the evidence is that
> Slavic developed
> continuously, over exactly the same period of time
> that Greek and everyother
> IE language did.

*****GK: Well in that sense "pre-French" or any other
current IE language is also contemporary to Mycenaean
Greek. A position more ideological than scientific.
The point of course is : how can you tell whether the
specific characteristics of Slavic, those which make
it a distinct group of IE languages, already existed
at the time of Mycenaean Greek. Germanic for instance
(if one considers the Grimm shift essential for its
identification) likely did not yet exist at that time.
The point is not that in a sense Slavic is just as
much a post- PIE language as anything existing
today.****

>
> Peter
>
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html