Re: Determining genetic descent among languages

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@>

wrote:

> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@>

wrote:

>
> > > > Q: How can the IEL then determine chronology based on the
> genetic tree
> > > > model if the assumption of genetic descent is itself based on
> > > 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.
>
> Phonetically the vocabulary seems coherent enough. (I think the
> Nordwest substrate beloved of Torsten is irrelevant here.) There does
> not seem to be any doubt that it derives from 'core Indo-European'.
> Are you wondering if it is a hybrid of different branches? I think
> the notion of a long-lasting dialect cluster, like Romance, is highly
> relevant.
>
> > So the
> > comparativist reconstruction *assumes* a chronology to begin with.
>
> Do you mean it assumes a lack of inter-branch borrowing?

Yes. The pefect phylogentic tree does assume that all the branches
went their separate ways after the intial breakup. Warnow et. al. have
shown that not to be the case.

See Fig 12 (p. 22) and section 6 (p. 22) of the link below

<http://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/Papers/81.2nakhleh.pdf>

and section 7.7 (p. 52) of the following study.

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/CPHL/RWT02.pdf


Do you mean

> it assumes that all branches are equally valid as evidence for the
> parent?

Yes again. Say a group of people later to become Germanic speaking,
decided to adopt an existing IE langauge becuase it was an important
language of the time, just like English is today. But they adopted it
with their existing accent. So pater became fadder etc. A Bangala
speaker pronunces Douglas as Doglas. This could have happend just
centuries before the Germanic family became known to history (about
1000 years ago?). So comparativist can't simply through Latin,
Sanskrit, Greek and Germanic into a kitchen sink and then try to trace
a point of origin.

The comparative method is no doubt useful to trace the history of
Indo-Aryan or Romance langauges because there exists a Rig Veda or an
early Church literature in Latin. This is not the case across the
board in all the families.

M. Kelkar



Or are you querying the concept of the Germanic languages

> deriving from a common language? (Some see ancient isoglosses within
> Germanic.)






>
> > I
> > 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.
>
> Are you suggesting that 'Indo-Aryan' is a partly geographic term, like
> 'West Germanic' or 'West Slavic'?
>
> > > Were Indo-European merely something that arose from convergence,
> > > 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.
>
> Well, it would serve one of its alleged roles, namely a summary of
> correspondences.
>
> > > > "But if scholars had only several semi-Romance languages like
> Albanian
> > > > at their disposal and applied to them the comparative method as
> it is
> > > > practiced in Indo-European studies, they would be obliged to
> > > > 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.
>
> And it may take a long time for disentangling to happen. The
> reconstructed 'semi-Romance' proto-language might be something that
> would later be overthrown.
>
> Richard.
>