--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-02-15 22:44, mkelkar2003 wrote:
>
> > The best fit model obtained by Ringe et. al. fits the above secnerio
> > very well.
>
> No, it doesn't. In all their trees the first split is between Anatolian
> and "non-Anatolian IE", and then non-Anatolian IE splits into Tocharian
> and "the rest" -- the crown group of IE. None of the analyses suggests
> anything corresponding to Elst's "zone A" or to "Tocharo-Italo-Celtic".
> There is no "Greek-Armenian-Aryan" either (except in Tree E, the "least
> perfect" one). And why does Elst forget Albanian? Maybe he's half-aware
> that Albania is a more plausible IE homeland than India and wants to get
> it out of sight, just in case ;)
>
> > Germanic oscillates just like it is supposed to assuming a South
> > Asian homeland.
>
> Would it oscillate differently if the homeland were different? Why?
>
> > Elst's (2000) Group A would be far right in Fig 12 and Group B far
> > left.
>
> This reading of the tree proves that you don't even understand what a
> phylogeny means.
>
> Piotr
I am not talking about splitting Fig 12 in the middle! Follow the
diagram in Fig 12 from right to left
"Initially, there was a single PIE language.
That is the highest point where the tree begins.
2) The first division of PIE yielded two dialect groups, which will be
called A and B. Originally they co-existed in the same area, and
influenced each other, but geographical separation put an end to this
interaction.
Group A and B are BEFORE Anatolian splits off.
Group A is HI, LU, LY, TB, TA, OI, WE, LA, OS, UM
Group B is the remainder
3) In zone A, one dialect split off, probably by geographical
separation (whether it was its own speakers or those of the other
dialects who emigrated from the Urheimat, is not yet at issue), and
went on to develop separately and become Anatolian.
That is the first separation corrosponding to the first branch HI, LU, LY.
4) The remainder of the A group acquired the distinctive
characteristics of the Tocharo-Italo-Celtic subgroup.
5) While the A remainder differentiated into Italo-Celtic and
Tokharic,
These are the second and the third splits into the tree.
"the B group differentiated into a "northern" or
Balto-Slavic-Germanic and a "southern" or Greek-Armenian-Aryan group;
note that the kentum/satem divide only affects the B group, and does
not come in the way of other and more important isoglosses
distinguishing the northern group (with kentum Germanic and
predominÂantÂly satem Baltic and Slavic) from the southern group (with
kentum Greek and satem Armenian and Aryan)."
Now things start getting complicated. The CPHL groups could not find a
definite position for AL and OE, ON, GO, OG. You could suitably move
them (on those dotted lines) on the branching sequence to corrspond
with Elst's northern Balto-Slavic-Germanic and southern GK AR, AR.
As you point out Elst does not mention Albanian probably because there
a dispute about its Kentum Satem status. I would put it in the Soutern
group. Gray Atkinson tree has the following order of branching
Hittite-Tocharian-Armenian-Greek-Albanian-IIr. So I think Elst's
southern group will be better for Albanian.
M. Kelkar