From: Rick McCallister
Message: 53368
Date: 2008-02-16
> At 9:38:51 PM on Friday, February 15, 2008,____________________________________________________________________________________
> mkelkar2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "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.
>
> > Elst (2000) is talking about zones and not actual
> splits
> > among the languages.
>
> If so, then he doesn't know what he's talking about.
> But
> since you've already proved that you don't know what
> you're
> talking about, and I haven't read him directly, I'll
> withhold judgement on him in this matter.
>
> [...]
>
> >> 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 is no need for an Tocharo Italo-Celtic
> group.
>
> That's entirely beside the point. You claimed that
> it
> showed one. It doesn't. You clearly didn't
> understand what
> you were looking at. I very much doubt that you
> understand
> it even now.
>
> [...]
>
> > All that matters is, is the present distribution
> of IE
> > languages compatible with an Indian Homeland
> scenerio.
>
> It isn't.
>
> Brian
>
>
>