From: mkelkar2003
Message: 53359
Date: 2008-02-16
>No I am not afraid to post on Cybalist as a cockroach. I will have
> It's more a case of not caring. Anything that doesn't
> agree with his message gets twisted or ignored. He's
> like the tobacco companies regarding lung cancer, the
> oil companies regarding global warming, the
> creationist lunatics. He's true believer and I'm sure
> he's afraid that he doubted his dogma for one second
> that he would be reborn as a cockroach.
>____________________________________________________________________________________
> --- "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> > At 6:19:47 PM on Friday, February 15, 2008,
> > mkelkar2003
> > wrote:
> >
> > > --- 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".
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >>> 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.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > The tree shows no such split. The very first split
> > shown in
> > this tree is between Anatolian, on the one hand, and
> > everything else, on the other.
> >
> > > Group A is HI, LU, LY, TB, TA, OI, WE, LA, OS, UM
> >
> > > Group B is the remainder
> >
> > The tree does not show a split between HI, LU, LY,
> > TB, TA,
> > OI, WE, LA, OS, and UM, on the one hand, and
> > everything
> > else, on the other.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > What the tree shows is Anatolian splitting from
> > everything
> > else. It does not show your A and B groups at all.
> > It also
> > does not show a Tocharo-Italo-Celtic group: the only
> > group
> > that it shows that contains all of OS, UM, LA, OI,
> > WE, TB,
> > and TA is the group that contains *all* of the
> > non-Anatolian
> > dialects.
> >
> > There's no point bothering with the rest. Piotr's
> > right:
> > you clearly don't understand what you're looking at
> > here.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>