Re: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formatin of IE subgroups

----- Original Message -----

From: Piotr Gasiorowski

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:22 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formatin of IE subgroups

On 2006-05-09 18:21, Daniel J. Milton wrote:

>     Are others as persuaded as Mssrs. Melkar and Ryan by Ballester's
> paper:
> http://www.continuitas.com/ballester_equilibrium.pdf
> that linguistic change was slower in the Paleolithic than since (or
> elsewhere)?
>     It seems the sort of speculation that can't be proved or refuted.
>  My reaction is just a shrug.

May I join you? [Shrug, shrug.] The argument is specious. First, there
are some straw men there: few mainstream linguists, including students
of IE, would subscribe to the view that the rate of language change is
even roughly constant (many have said so openly, and Ballester himself
quotes them); the estimated age of PIE is _not_ based on any assumed
rate of change.

 

<snip>

 

***

Patrick:

 

But the idea of semi-constant language change sufficient to obliterate any traces to a very early ancestor of PIE and PAA was advanced on this list not too long ago, was it not?

 

That is why Ballester is significant. He questions the validity of this view —  rightly, in my opinion.

 

***