From: mkelkar2003
Message: 46744
Date: 2006-12-24
>I understand it quite well. See where Armenian and Albanian are in the
> At 8:39:23 PM on Friday, December 22, 2006, mkelkar2003
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> > <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>> This is what is documented:
> >>>> At 1500 BC we find several Anatolian languages and an
> >>>> early version of Greek. At 1000 BC(?) we might suppose
> >>>> the Sanskrit we know was codified. Centuries after that
> >>>> we find the other members of the Indo-European language
> >>>> family. These are facts.
>
> >>> No they are *NOT* facts. They are hypotheses.
>
> >> We find inscriptions of Hittite from that time.
> >> And Sanskrit began to be written down in the early centuries of
> >> the first millenium. Fact.
>
> > The date when a langauge was first written down has
> > nothing do with how old that langauge is.
>
> On the contrary, it obviously shows that the language is at
> least as old as the writing.
>
> >>> The question of whether Hittite is older or Sankrit is
> >>> itself a matter of opinion.
>
> >>> "Many points of controversy surround the reconstruction
> >>> of PIE, and indeed surround any reconstruction effort.
> >>> Some are methodological questions (for example, how do
> >>> we distinguish archaisms from innovations?); some are
> >>> philosophical (for example, what kinds of evidence are
> >>> admissible in reconstruction?); some are simply
> >>> differences of opinion based on the preconceptions and
> >>> orientation of the investigator (for example, which is
> >>> more archaic, Hittite or Sanskrit?)," (Baldi 1983, p.
> >>> 14-15, parentheses in the original).
>
> >> You misunderstand Baldi. 'Archaic' doesn't mean 'old'.
>
> > No I do not.
>
> If you did understand what he meant by 'more archaic', then
> citing this passage as evidence for the assertion above
> ('The question ... is a matter of opinion') was simply
> dishonest. You'd be better off admitting that you didn't
> understand it.
>
> [...]
>
> >> The branch called historical linguistics studies
> >> languages, compares them and imagines what they might
> >> once been. They also try to find out what the speakers of
> >> those imagined languages were like. Then it tries to find
> >> arguments to back up what they imagined. What it doesn't
> >> do is worry about the political implications of the
> >> things it has imagined and argued for.
>
> > Historical linguistics is especially prone to politically
> > motived abuse [...]
>
> And your posts would be prime examples, if they actually
> contained any historical linguistics.
>
> Brian
>