From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 46429
Date: 2006-10-21
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@> wrote:genetic tree
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
> > > Q: How can the IEL then determine chronology based on the
> > > model if the assumption of genetic descent is itself based onPhonetically the vocabulary seems coherent enough. (I think the
> > chronology?
> Since there are very large time gaps among the first dates when each
> of the languages were first attested in writing, it is impossible to
> tell whether a branch like Germanic descended from the same
> protolanguage as others or is completely a result of borrowing.
> So theDo you mean it assumes a lack of inter-branch borrowing? Do you mean
> comparativist reconstruction *assumes* a chronology to begin with.
> IAre you suggesting that 'Indo-Aryan' is a partly geographic term, like
> remember reading somewhere that if there was no Rig Veda the various
> languages of the "Indo-Aryan" familiy would be be quite difficulty to
> classify as such.
> > Were Indo-European merely something that arose from convergence,Well, it would serve one of its alleged roles, namely a summary of
> > then the question would be, 'What can a date for PIE mean?'.
> If the IE family structure did arise from convergence would there
> be a need for PIE? I think not.
> > > "But if scholars had only several semi-Romance languages likeAlbanian
> > > at their disposal and applied to them the comparative method asit is
> > > practiced in Indo-European studies, they would be obliged toAnd it may take a long time for disentangling to happen. The
> > > reconstruct a protolanguage for the semi-Romance group as well.
> > Disentangling mixtures is nothing new - Armenian may well be the best
> The ability to disentangle depends on what history has put on the
> comparativists' plate. Genius comes next, chance comes first.