Re: Greek kitharis

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@> wrote:

>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@> wrote:

>>>> PIE as Proto-World?! Even Ruhlen has more sense than that.

>>> I didn't say PIE was the original language, or the source of
>>> all languages ever spoken.

>> You did, however, say that it was the source of all known
>> languages, which is what is normally meant by 'Proto-World'.

> Not at all. There may be languages spoken that haven't been
> discovered or examined by linguists, or not described at all
> (or well enough for correct classification), and some undeciphered
> languages obviously could be non-PIE.

Irrelevant. Your statement, which for some reason you conveniently
erased from this response, was:

>>>>> All known languages not currently classified as IE are
>>>>> actually from one branch of IE: Indo-Iranian.

From which it obviously follows that all known languages are
either currently classified as IE or in fact II. Unless you
care to maintain that some languages now classified as IE in
fact are not IE, you very clearly *are* claiming that all
known languages are IE. Which is lunacy.

[snip further irrelevance]

Brian