Re: Greek kitharis

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

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

> > No, I said it and it's true. What are you objecting to about
> > my response? I said there could be unknown languages that were
> > non-IE, etc., so PIE wouldn't equal "Proto-World" if there were.
>
> Proto-World is normally taken to be the most recent common ancestor
> (if one exists) of all *known* language. I pointed this out before.
>
> [..]
>
> > Your claim of my theory meaning there would be
> > an equivalency between PIE and PW is not so,
>
> It is, by the definition of PW with which I'm most familiar.
>
> > and you haven't given any reason for your apparent (continued)
> > misunderstanding.
>
> I did. You ignored it. From
>
> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62326>:
>
> You did, however, say that [PIE] was the source of all known
> languages, which is what is normally meant by 'Proto-World'.
>
> But it really doesn't matter, since as far as I'm concerned you've
> completely destroyed any credibility that you might previously have
> enjoyed.

I don't agree with your definition of PW. Even if it were true, and
a supposed PW reconstructed correctly using sound methodology, the
discovery of a previously unknown language could require the
reconstruction of an earlier language ancestral to both it and the
previous group, which, by definition, would be PW (the previous rec.
called PW would be a sub-group of the real PW). By my theory, PIE
isn't ancestral by definition, but by happenstance. Each language
newly discovered (unless correctly classified within an existing
group) must be examined, if found not to be IE, the new ancestor
wouldn't be PIE. PIE wouldn't need redefinition to include a non-IE
language.