From: mkapovic@...
Message: 38706
Date: 2005-06-17
>Well, at the time of Mycenaean, some form of pre-Slavic (it was really
>
> --- 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.****