Re: Greek kitharis

From: bmscotttg
Message: 62338
Date: 2009-01-02

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

> --- 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,

Sheesh. 'True' is not a predicate applicable to definitions.

> 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).

So? The same is true mutatis mutandis of any other proto-language.

> By my theory, PIE isn't ancestral by definition, but by
> happenstance.

Obviously. So what?