Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

So your point is that

in fact, languages evolve fairly slowly

and sometimes "retro-evolved"

My conclusion that Germanic must have

split very earlier in order to achieve minor changes

was right.

If we take Spanish versus Italian,

Westic split will get an earlier datation than - 1 500.

I agree that French is an odd Latin/Romance language,

It didn't really split from Italian :

Gaulish and the other substrates were forced to

become Latin, and the result was imperfect.

The imperfect result was forced to adjust to Frankish,

but this time, major changed failed to occur.

Arnaud

----- Original Message -----

From: Rick McCallister

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:14 AM

Subject: Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

But French and Italian only split sometime between
500-800 CE and much of their difference is due to
adstrate.
Look at Spanish, Italian and Portuguese which split at
about the same time --they're still mutually
comprehensible.
Look at Sardo, Catalan and Occitan, I can read them
without a dictionary and without ever having studying
them in my life.
French just happens to be an anomaly.

If Eriza and Moksha were different 2,500 years ago,
then they probably stayed side by side and
assimilated. There is a lot of that between Spanish
and Portuguese --Portuñol. Slang and even jokes pass
between Latin American Spanish and Portuguese yet
Spanish and Portuguese were separate languages early
on. In fact they were less mutually comprehensible in
the Middle Ages than today.

--- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@ wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
http://mobile. yahoo.com/ go?refer= 1GNXIC