First peopling. Of course, there's no proof either - otherwise we
wouldn't discuss on this topic - and there are many other
possibilities, but our first task is to fix the extreme extensions of
what is reasonable. Such extremes are by definition scarcely
attractive, but they are nevertheless necessary. One of these extremes
is Drew's theory (Non-Anatolian PIE shortly before the earliest
Non-Anatolian evidence; I don't like Indo-Hittite theory, but this is
nevertheless a necessary extreme; S. Kalyanaraman puts himself beyond
this extreme); the other one (on the remote side) is (Europe's) First
Peopling. Why is it necessary? Because nothing can (still) exclude it.
Let's leave apart non linguistic consideration and let's concentrate
on linguistic arguments: the crucial point is how to judge anything
that isn't universally accepted as PIE heritage (Tavi doesn't accept
PIE reconstructions and his rejection is even more radical than what
he states, because he operates with different - if any - soundlaws, so
his theory is outside the scope of this discussion). As long as
alleged Pre-IE evidence can receive PIE etymologies according to
received soundlaws, the discussion must remain open. If and only if
all these regular PIE etymologies were right (beside being correct),
the equation PIE dispersal = Europe's First Peopling could gain
something in probability, although still not definitely proven. I
presume I can offer a regular PIE etymology for any alleged Pre-IE
relic and I think such etymology, although not always better, is
anyway never worse than its alternatives. This is the best linguistic
discussion we can deepen on this topic
2012/12/10, Brian M. Scott <
bm.brian@...>:
> [Top-posting corrected.]
>
> At 6:22:33 PM on Sunday, December 9, 2012, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
>
>
>> 2012/12/10, Brian M. Scott <bm.brian@...>:
>
>>> At 5:50:26 PM on Sunday, December 9, 2012,
>>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
>
>>>> Complete agreement for all the rest, but why are You all
>>>> so sure that there were pre-PIE languages?
>
>>> PIE clearly originated in an area much smaller than that in
>>> which the IE languages were spoken 3000 years ago, say. The
>>> larger region was not uninhabited prior to the arrival of IE
>>> speakers.
>
>> Whence do You have such a certainty? Obviously "PIE
>> clearly clearly originated in an area much smaller than
>> that in which the IE languages were spoken 3000 years ago"
>> and it's also probable (though not proven, but I find it
>> anyway more probable than anything else) that a
>> phonologically unitary diasystem ancestor to the IE
>> languages was (still) in existence say 4000-3500 years
>> BC(E), but having said that no one is yet that PIE origins
>> - and their restricted homeland - are to be put precisely
>> then and not many millennia before.
>
> I don't think that the available evidence concerning rates
> of linguistic change is compatible with a date *many*
> millennia earlier, but I also don't see what difference it
> makes. What scenario can you possibly imagine that does
> *not* have IE speakers moving into regions populated by
> non-IE speakers?
>
> Brian
>
>