From: mkelkar2003
Message: 53371
Date: 2008-02-16
>What?
> He throws around names like confetti. He cited
> Lubotsky for support. I just read Lubotsky and he
> plainly speaks of Indo-Iranian and its location before
> Indo-Aryan moved into India.
>
> --- "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:____________________________________________________________________________________
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>