From: Rick McCallister
Message: 50145
Date: 2007-09-30
> Early attestations of OE, ON, OSax, and OHG are far____________________________________________________________________________________
> too
> similar to be the result of some three millennia of
> divergence; the suggestion can't be taken seriously.
>
> Brian
>
> ===================
> A.F
> 1.
> I have read that you can transpose word by word
> Sanscrit
> into Lituanian and get decent Lituanian :
> MAybe PIE has not even started splitting in fact !?
>
> 2.
> How many different conjugations and roots have been
> listed
> in Old English for the most basic verb : to be.
> I heard a joke that there are as many verbs "to be"
> as you can find OE texts.
> I don't think these languages are that much similar.
> I(ch) stand means present in English : past : I got
> up in German.
> There are major incoherences within Westic.
>
> 3.
> If you take the 100 word list as a base for a rough
> datation,
> FRench versus Italian : 79 %
> English versus German : 72 %
> French against English/German : 34 or 35 %.
>
> Erzia and Moksha within URalic : 83%
> We know from tombs, that display different features,
> that these two branches of Mordvin were already
> separated
> 2500 years ago.
> Some people even think these are only one language.
>
> If we take the average 79 and 83 : 81
> this about - 10 % per 1000 year
> (You can check with .xls Power(0,9999;year)
>
> Westic is 100-72 = 28
> Westic is split in individual languages
> at least since around -1 500 BC.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian M. Scott
> To: fournet.arnaud
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:47 AM
> Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory
> renamed as Vasco-Caucasian
>
>
> At 3:53:19 PM on Saturday, September 29, 2007,
> fournet.arnaud wrote:
>
> > From: Brian M. Scott
>
> >> At 1:06:22 AM on Saturday, September 29, 2007,
> >> fournet.arnaud wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> English and German were different languages as
> early as
> >>> - 2500,
>
> >> This is obviously impossible, both
> linguistically and
> >> historically.
>
> > Obvious impossible !?
>
> > For which reasons ?
>
> Early attestations of OE, ON, OSax, and OHG are
> far too
> similar to be the result of some three millennia
> of
> divergence; the suggestion can't be taken
> seriously.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>