Re: [tied] Greek+Slavic

>
>
> --- mkapovic@... wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Well, at the time of Mycenaean, some form of
>> pre-Slavic (it was really
>> still Balto-Slavic probably) surely had developed
>> some peculiar
>> characteristics.
>
> *****GK: Of course. But Balto-Slavic is not Slavic.
> And calling it "pre-Slavic" is not particularly
> useful.*****
>
> It is not very likely that Slavic
>> remained the same as
>> PIE while Greek changed so much in the same time and
>> it's not very likely
>> that BSl and Germanic, for instance, had been the
>> same in that time.
>
> *****GK: I see no problem with this view.*****
>
> The
>> analogy with French is not very useful, I'm afraid.
>
> *****GK: It's only intended to point out that the
> specifics of "national" linguistic identity are
> historical, and with some luck (as in the case of
> French) may be clarified to a considerable extent on
> that plane. It's perhaps trickier with "Romance" since
> that involves many units. I'd be curious to know your
> take on the emergence of "Slavic" (not "Balto-Slavic"
> or "pre-Slavic"). Is there any linguistic evidence
> which can help to date its dissociation from
> "Balto-Slavic" or development from "pre-Slavic"?*****

I don't think so. Anyway, I'm pretty close to those who think that
Proto-Slavic was just an innovative Baltic dialect that has rapidly
expanded over a vast territory due to some historical reasons. I certainly
don't think that Slavs were some separate nation or something like that if
that's what you mean.

Mate