glen gordon wrote:
> Grzegorz:
>> My imagination has little to do with strict
>> boundaries, the tree and the wave models, and other
>> suspections, but more with known facts.
>
> Well, imagination helps interpret those facts
> properly.
As it will be important, I must emphasize that we agree completely in
this point. The problem is however whether this imagination is based on
facts or just clearly phantastic. Imagination should help explaining facts
with the help of other observed phenomena. But it is bad when imagination
prompts solutions which are in disaccordance with facts.
>> So, I imagine that what we call the Proto-Indo-
>> Europaean was ONE language once, with
>> some closely related dialects (or even so uniform
>> as Latin must have been once), used within a
>> small area.
>
> The diffusion of IE likely started from a small area,
> yes. However, what filled the surrounding areas before
> its expansion?
>
> Para-IE dialects most likely. In other words, as
> the Core IE expanded, it would have supplanted all
> of the previous "almost-IE" dialects. The substrate
> influence may in part be responsible for some of
> the idiosyncratic features of some dialects (or
> groups of neighbouring dialects) later on. So as I
> always say, IE was always fragmented into dialects.
And here we have a little difference between us, perhaps mainly of a
terminological nature. We must clearly separate two processes, namely
natural development of a dialect with time (including its diversification)
from borrowings (including loans from dialects which are being replaced by
newer ones). In my opinion, even if those para-IE dialects affected the core
IE language, we cannot say that further IE languages are descendants of
those para-IE dialects. Once again, none of modern Greek dialects is a
descendant of a non-Attic dialect of ancient Greek. They all continues the
Hellenic koine (and perhaps even the second, Byzantine koine) and not single
dialects, however those ancient dialects have left their traces in modern
Greek. None of modern Italian dialects is a descendant of an ancient Italic
non-Rome-Latin dialect but those Italic dialects may have left their traces
in
modern Romance dialects. None of modern Indic dialects is a descendant of a
non-Vedic dialect from ancient India, however some of those ancient dialects
may have left their traces in modern Indic dialects.
Of course, as I am not a specialist in Indic languages (even if I have some
knowledge on Romance and Greek), I accept these claims with some
reservation. So, if you know facts that contradict these claims, please let
me know. However, until I learn such facts, I will be claiming that any
language group, also the IE family, comes from one single language, or even
from one single dialect. And this one single dialect differentiated and
diverged with time, and the individual daughter dialects underwent
influences of other dialects, including those para-dialects. The latter were
however replaced (even if left traces) and did not survive.
My imagination prompts me such a model, and I see no reason for discussion
of its theoretic base, because it is based on facts, on real development
which is well known is some instances. I also believe that such a model of
diversing and replacing old dialects with newer ones, is universal. It
explains why we cannot observe continuity but discrete disposition of
dialects, languages and language branches rather.
>> The model according to which that one, relatively
>> uniform PIE language split into many many dialects,
>> equally related with each other, and which finally
>> formed nothing but historic attested languages, is
>> incorrect.
>
> YES!!! Ironically that's one of the things that I'm
> trying to get across!
I am not sure if we understand each other in this point. I just emphasize
that the bush model is incorrect but the tree model may be correct. So, in
my opinion, once there was one, relatively uniform PIE language, and it
split into several dialects. But next each of those dialects split into
several dialects... etc. Modern languages / dialects are the thinnest twigs
of this tree. The thing I tried to understroke is that Proto-Slavic,
Proto-Germanic, Proto-Indic, Proito-Indo-Iranian were the same real single
languages once, like Proto-Indo-European hundreds of years before them.
But I see no reasons for claiming that Proto-Anatolian was also one of such
"partial" proto-languages. A discussion on mechanisms of language
divergencing is interesting (as another thread) however it has little to do
with the main problem which is: are Anatolian languages so closely related
to each other like, say, Slavic or Romance? I say no to this question. In
other words: Anatolian does not seem to be monophyletic while Slavic does,
Germanic does, Romance does (in fact, "seem" is really needless here, as we
just know for sure that Romance languages _are_ monophyletic). If several IE
dialects spread in Anatolia, and each single Anatolian language was a
descendant of one of those dialects, and their common ancestor was nothing
else as the common IE proto-dialect, we should term Anatolian paraphylectic
("all descendants except some" - this "some" means all non-Anatolian IE
dialects). And if we assumed that Anatolian was a secondary group (a
language league, or a Sprachbund if using German terminology), and so called
Anatolian languages came to Anatolia in two (or more) waves, the branch
should be termed polyphylectic.
>> We know with absolute certainty that e.g. Spanish
>> and Portuguese do not come from two different IE
>> dialects but from one homogenous language which was
>> Latin of Rome.
>
> I see your problem. You don't understand that
> "homogenous" is really in the eye of the beholder.
> Even my own personal "English" differs in some
> respects from the general speech here in Canada.
> I notice I like to monophthongize a little (teehee),
> for example.
It is hard to expect that modern English was homogenous - it is the worst
example as English is used in many countries and has become a world
Esperanto recently.
> Canadian English isn't homogenous. Manitoban English
> isn't homogenous. Winnipeg English isn't homogenous.
> Even an individual's use of a language will change
> over the course of his lifetime and mine will too.
Webster's defines homogenous as "having similarity in structure because of
common descent". Similarity does not mean identity. I understand the
similarity here as occuring such differences (at the outmost) which do not
disturb the language communication. The real definition of a dialect can be
even more restrictive (note that communication between speakers of different
dialects of one language can be almost undisturbed) but it still allows some
differences between idiolects and some changes with lifetime. And, when I am
talking about one common ancestoral IE language, I mean just such an
ethnolect (ethnolect = language or dialect) with no internal communication
problems.
> I'm **not** saying that IE is un-reconstructable
> because of this. What I'm saying is that IE always
> had dialectal variation of some kind, even in its
> pre-history, just like any language.
Also Greek always had dialectal variation. However, modern Greek dialects
are descendants of one of ancient dialects, even if with "admixture" from
the side of other ancient dialects. I believe that such a mechanism is
universal, and I see no reason for assuming that it was otherwise in the
instance of Indo-European. So: IE always had dialectal variation, but all IE
languages are descendants of one dialect. All the others died but left
traces (in the form of borrowings of any kind, not only lexical).
> The roots and
> stems that are reconstructed are still valid but they
> are a _generalization_ of IE as it was at that time.
>
> Latin or Greek are not reconstructed. We know what
> the various dialects sound like because there were
> attentive authors recording them at the time. IEists
> don't have that luxury. We can only reconstruct
> the generalized reconstructions for now.
Oh, this is yet another problem (very distant from the main subject of this
thread). Just take all modern Slavic languages (without OCS) and try to
reconstruct Proto-Slavic. Just take all Romance languages and try to
reconstruct Latin. All PIE reconstructions are worth as much as those ones -
but they are the best thing we can do.
For example, let's try to explain these m- and bh- endings. The suspected
homogenous IE protolanguage can have had only one of them, or none. Or both
were present but with different functions. Or, say, the process bh > m was a
(regular or not) development in one of para-IE dialects, and next the result
was borrowed into some IE dialects. We will probably never know the truth,
but this cannot be the argument for polydialectal character of the
Proto-Indo-European ancestoral language. Excessive emphasizing that PIE was
always differentiated and that there did never exist one PIE ancestoral
dialect is the best medium for many para-scientific and pseudo-scientific
Däniken-like "theories". I am under impression that we both think about the
same even if we use different terminology.
> In the future, we may figure out more exact details
> of IE dialects at various stages like 4000 BCE, 4500
> BCE, etc. but that requires the full understanding
> that there is no such thing as a "homogenous
> language" in the strictest sense.
Homogeny must be understood properly. And one should not forget influence
from "para-" dialects which did not survive.
>> The wave theory suggest that some linguistic
>> features may expand through language boundaries
>> (or: despite of limits of mutual
>> incomprehensilility of areally neighbouring
>> dialects). So, the isogloss map need not be a map
>> of original IE dialects.
>
> ?? Non sequitur. Even if some features go beyond the
> boundaries of IE itself, that fact has no bearing on
> whether it details the boundaries of IE dialects
> within. It won't tell you what is north and what is
> south but it gives a map of interrelationship that
> can indeed help us locate where IE dialects were
> positioned in relation to others. (Aka: a dialect
> network.)
Some features may have been borrowed later. For example, take similarities
(and dissimilarities) between Greek and Armenian. They do not betoken
positions of proto-Greek and proto-Armenian dialects (if there were such) in
the IE language. They only testify that Greek and Armenian existed side by
side for some time in the past. My opinion is that they were different
dialects and that they got closer during maybe some hundrends of years when
the Proto-Armenians were neighbours of the Proto-Greeks (they say there is
archaelogical evidence from Balkans for such a neighbourhood, and as I am
not an archaelogist, I can only believe it). So, it is quite probable (from
both linguistic and archaeologic point of wiew, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Centum_Satem_map.png) that Greek, Italic,
Celtic, Germanic come from one IE dialect while Armenian, Albanian, Slavic,
Baltic, Iranian, Indic from another, and similarities between, say, Slavic
and Germanic, or between Greek and Armenian, are due to further history and
not to the original position of dialects.
> If this isogloss network extends into other language
> families, that only makes are task of geographic
> mapping that much easier.
If it had extended.
> However, I can actually agree with you if indeed you
> were refering to the history of the dialects
> shown in such an isogloss map themselves. If we take
> a trip backwards in time, we might see both dialect
> mergers and splits going on.
And you know one documented example of merging dialects (not admixturing but
merging)? It is another interesting problem that exceedes this thread. Is
Japanese a merged ethnolect (some sources say that 80% of Japanese
vocabulary is of Chinese origin)? Or, in order not to leave our IE ground,
is English merged? But more than 60% of English vocabulary is not of
Germanic origin. However, terming English a Romance language would be
incorrect, and the same terming any IE language a descendant of one of
para-IE dialects would be incorrect. Is Armenian an IE language? But only
909 Armenian words in Adjarian's etymologic dictionary are native
(inherited). Compare this with more than 1400 Iranian borrowings (is
Armenian an Iranian language?). And take into consideration that ca. 6500
Armenian words from the total number of 10,772 have no etymology and we can
consider them Urartian. Is Armenian a merged language? Is it a member of its
own IE branch, an Iranian language, or does it belong to the Hurri-Urartian
language family? And what decides? Lexicon? Grammar? Really? What grammatic
features of English prove it should be counted as a member of the Germanic
branch? Take French as it is spoken (not written) and compare French grammar
with other Romance languages. Can you see many similarities? So, why English
should be counted within one while French within another branch? Perhaps the
opinion of prof. Man'czak is the closest to the truth. He claims that the
language most conservative element is vocabulary in texts, not in
dictionaries. Just take a sufficiently long English text (writen or spoken),
and count all appearences of inherited and borrowed words. It appears that
almost all frequent words are Germanic. And this is why we should not have
problem to point of which language English is a descendant, proto-Germanic
or Latin.
My opinion is that dialectal merging is highly improbable. But strong
influence - possible (except the most frequent vocabulary). And not only we
should reject the idea of merging dialects but also we have an instrument
which could help us to find the ancestoral dialect correctly.
> So for all we know, BaltoSlavic, for example, could
> be the product of a merger of two originally seperate
> pre-IE dialects.
The opinion of many prominent Polish linguists is different. There is also a
view that Slavic was one of Baltic dialects originally (thus Proto-Slavic
existed but not Proto-Baltic, only proto-Balto-Slavic). But it is another
thread, again. When considering Anatolian, I prefer using Slavic, Romance,
Germanic, Indic examples because they are just less controversial.
>> Not exactly. Languages and dialects are not just a
>> sum of idiolects with fluid boundaries. They are
>> discrete [...]
>
> Only in more recent, nationalistic times. Have you
> not studied Inuit dialects? Inuits don't have a
> "nation". Their distribution shows this fluidity
> that would have been prevalent in the neolithic.
Inuit forms a typical L-complex. The fluidity you speak about is within the
complex (errr... partially, but particular dialects are still
distinguishable) but not outside (to which languages Inuit is related the
closest?). It proves that all this L-complex has finally one common
ancestor. The Inuits crossed Bering Strait relatively not long ago, and they
brought that one initial dialect with them. The L-complex developed when
they spread through the huge territory where they inhabit till today.
Because of intensive mutual contacts between particular dialects, extorted
by natural conditions of life (and well described in the literature), they
have never formed separate, distinct languages.
> Did you not notice that even French has dialects?
> Many dialects. Even within France. Some dialects blur
> into other languages actually. I'm still amazed that
> I can read Occitan very well even though I speak
> French. It strikes me as a French-Spanish stew when I
> look at it. So much for even your nation-induced,
> linguistic "homogeneity"!
Not nation-induced. And, have dialectologists problems with counting each
single dialect as French, Occitan aka Provençal, Catalonian, Spanish or
Italian? Of course, we can observe similarities between neighbouring
dialects but still the situation is far from blurring continuity.
The same with Slavic languages: southern Polish dialects are more similar to
northern Slovak dialects than northern Polish to southern Slovak. But the
boundary between Polish and Slovak dialects is still very clear (it means:
an especially large number of isoglosses go together along the Polish-Slovak
border). The Polish - East Slavic (Ukrainian, Belarussian) border is yet
clearer and sharper (even if Lemkian is more similar to Polish than, say,
literary Ukrainian). Similarity through borders - yes. Continuity - no.
Homogeny within a dialect - yes, some homogeny within a language or a
L-complex - yes. But homogeny when taking two adjacent languages /
L-complexes - no. Isoglosses have tendency to go together. You cannot
observe this if you analyse 10 isoglosses. But if you take 1000 of them
(phonological, lexical, syntactical etc.), you will notice it for sure.
The secondary question is why we observe such a picture. Of course, it can
have few common with nations in modern times. Many others factors, including
geographic ones, may have caused language discontinuities (Polish is
separated from Slovak with Carpathian Mountains, Lower Sorbian was separated
from Upper Sorbian with almost primaeval forests, etc.).
> Likewise IE, especially once spread out into dialects,
> did NOT operate in any way, shape or form like
> "ONE" language because its speakers could not
> have understood the concept of "nation", "country" or
> "empire" at that time.
By the way, the idea of nation is older than you think. Ancient Greeks had
strong feeling of belonging to a particular region or town, and, as a
consequence, to a particular dialect. But they can have distinguished a
Greek from a barbarian as well. I can see striking similarities to the idea
of nation in modern times, and can't you?
> But what language does operate
> as a single language really, even in modern times?
Do not exaggerate. Forget English for known reasons. Take Polish which has
more than 35 million users in Poland. Of course dialects do exist but have
rural, "incultural", environmental etc. character. And many Poles do not use
any other dialect than this common, literary, known from books, school, TV,
etc. I cannot imagine a candidate for the president of Poland who would use
a dialect instead of the literary language. Of course some regional
variations exist but they are too little and unimportant so that we could
speak about dialects in the cultural Polish ("polszczyzna kulturalna" is the
official term, so do not even try to discuss with it :-) ).
> IE speakers may have realized in general that they
> shared a linguistic commonality but that's about it
> because the archaeology of the North Pontic shows a
> fair amount of variation in physical types and
> materials.
>
>
> = gLeN
Once again, we should expect that only one of dialects of those times has
survived till modern times, as all the IE languages. All the rest may have
influenced new dialects that emerged from the one, but finally they all fell
into disuse.
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
http://uk.security.yahoo.com