--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...>
>
> >> I also disagree that arklas is traceable to PIE.
> >> this would mean that PIE was neolithic,
> >> something I disagree with.
> >
> > I don't understand how this would mean that PIE was neolithic.
And
> > do you mean that you think that PIE was older or younger than
> > neolithic?
> > AJ
> =======
> This meaning "plow" in Lituanian arklas, if from PIE *arH3-tl-,
necessarily
> implies that PIE speakers were in a position to master agriculture,
plowing,
> etc.
> I believe PIE was _older_ than Neolithic, much older in fact.
> I have come to believe the terminum post quem is about -12 000 BC.
> Arnaud
So you're saying that Lithuanian <arklas> must be a later formation
(than PIE) with analogical *-tl- introduced after the *-tel-/-tl-
instead of *-tel-/-tr- analogy developed, right? Again, I have no
argument against that. Now, is there a distinction between non-
agricultural PIE speakers and agricultural IE speakers? Because it
seems that most compilations of common ancestors of words in modern
IE languages include agricultural terms, such as verbs meaning "to
plough (or "plow" if you prefer)", "to sow", "to mow", "to reap", and
nouns such as "acre (i.e. "plowed field")", "scythe", "sickle", and
whatever others (some derivatives of agricultural verbs). Are you
saying that these are not common to all IE languages, and therefore
do not go back to PIE? And is that why you believe PIE speakers were
non-agricultural? I personally would need more convincing of this
idea, since it seems almost taken for granted that agricultural terms
are part of the core shared vocabulary that argues for a common
ancestry for the modern IE languages -- so why not PIE also? (I
apologize if you've presented your argument before; maybe you could
direct me to those postings, I might have overlooked them in the
past.)
AJ