From: stlatos
Message: 62330
Date: 2009-01-01
>Yes.
> --- 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 youNo, I said it and it's true. What are you objecting to about my
> 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.