From: tgpedersen
Message: 46758
Date: 2006-12-24
> > > > > > > ""It is usually supposed that, at one time, there was aYes and Hittite is also older than that too as you stated with pomp
> > > > > > > single Indo-European language, the so-called
> > > > > > > Indo-European protolanguage, from which all historically
> > > > > > > attested Indo-European languages are presumed to
> > > > > > > descend.
> > > > > > > This supposition is contradicted by the fact
> > > > > > > that, no matter how far we peer back into history, we
> > > > > > > always find a multitude of Indo-European-speaking
> > > > > > > peoples.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> >
> > Obviously. Why should this be relevant here?
>
> It is relevant because Sanskrit can be and is older than the Hittite
> inscriptions of 1500 BCE.