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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> On 2006-05-10 02:18, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> The main point is that language change inescapably affects _any_
> ordinary spoken language. This is a natural consequence of the way

in

> which language is handed down consecutive generations. The rate of
> change may vary almost chaotically, but is, and has always been,
> significally greater than zero. How far into the past we can reach

using

> the comparative method and internal reconstruction can only be
> determined empirically, not by imposing arbitrary limitations in
> advance. So far, the methods currently regarded as valid have been
> spectacularly successful when applied to the IE languages (and

some

> other groupings), moderately successful when applied to

Afroasiatic

> (mainly because the historical evidence for several of the

proposed

> subfamilies is nonexistent or scanty, while Semitic and Egyptian

can

> boast an almost 5 ky diachronic record), and hardly successful at

all as

> regards more encompassing hypothetical groupings (e.g. Nostratic).

It

> isn't because some authority has decided that Nostratic is too

old: the

> methods have been tried and haven't yielded much, which may mean

that

> the Nostratic model is flawed, or that we are indeed dealing with

too

> deep chronologies. Or that we should go back to square one,

reconsider

> our data and try again.
>
> Piotr
>

Good position, Piotr!