From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 46752
Date: 2006-12-24
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"[...]
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
>> At 8:39:23 PM on Friday, December 22, 2006, mkelkar2003
>> wrote:
>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
>>> <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>>>>> The question of whether Hittite is older or Sankrit isThen why is the rest of your response a complete non
>>>>> 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.
> I understand it quite well.
> See where Armenian and Albanian are in the Atkinson Gray1. A European homeland theory has nothing to do with the
> chart below. It is not possible to maintain a European
> homeland theory with that tree.