On 2006-06-19 18:10, mkelkar2003 wrote:
> This has important implications for Indo-Euroepan linguists (or should
> we say Indo-Hittite linguists?).
It's probably the majority view today that the Anatolian/non-Anatolian
split is the earliest reconstructible division within IE. Most of the
knowledgeable Cybalist members, for that matter, would subscribe to such
a view, I presume. The question is whether the division is so deep that
it's reasonable to reserve the label "Indo-European" for the group
called so already in the 19th century (but what about Tocharian?) and
name the maximal family "Indo-Hittite". I think it's more prudent to
continue using the term "IE" in the maximally inclusive sense, just in
case our views about the status of Anatolian change in the future. It's
a terminological dispute anyway. Nothing really important is at stake.
> For one, all the dates will have to
> be pushed back to allow for the initial branching of Proto-Anatolian
> and the PIE with subsequent subranching of PA.
I suppose you mean "the subsequent subbranching of PIE". Well, Anatolian
was around in the early second millennium BC, Greek and Indo-Iranian
just a little later. Even a relatively shallow date like 3500 or 3000 BC
for the primary split is not a priori impossible. The required sequence
of splits could easily be reconciled with it. My personal preference is
for a deeper date, but I wouldn't die for my chronology. I realise I may
be wrong.
> Secondly, the
> Proto-Anatolian Homeland questions becomes a dichotomy; Anatolia or
> elsewhere.
It's a silly pseudo-problem. Of course Anatolian originated "in Anatolia
or elsewhere"! It also originated "in South America or elsewhere" (in
this case more likely elsewhere, though).
Piotr