>So we're determining language origins according to consensus vote? Does
>this have anything to do with "how many scholars" stand behind a particular
>locale? Well, by consensus vote, I'm not at all surprised that "north of
>the Black Sea (Russia) has the larger consensus. Then Turkey? That's fine
>by me also. Actually what's looney-gaga is the nationalism attached to
>each and every origin! J.P. Mallory calls for a
>BROAD swatch of an area for I-E origins. I think I'll throw my support in
>his direction.

From your description, it would seem that Mallory's proposition is just
as politically motivated as the others. Shame on you. In this case, Mallory
would be the "peacemaking/globalist" proposal as opposed to the
"nationalistic" ones. Putting politics aside (cuz you can never win on that
front), this "broad swatch" idea doesn't make sense for the logical,
non-politically-motivated reasons I've already stated.

>Didn't mean for you to get THAT excited.

You're always a source of excitement :)

> For linguistics to exist without archaeology is like words existing
>without speakers. Now that's LOONEY TOONS!

I don't think this is hard to understand: Archaeology only involves PHYSICAL
remains. Can language be a physical remain in prehistory? No.

What do you find difficult about this concept?

>Actually I think that both prehistoric and historic regions were
>multilingual from the start. And I also think the physiology (morphology)
>of the skeletal evidence was also mixed.

Nothing radical there.

>What demonstrates a language in the archaeological record? Only the
>morphological identity of the people as determined by skeletal calculations
>(and now their DNA).

And you don't see the logical problem with this???

>In other words, for the excavations in the Altai, one can assume that words
>exist for all the artificats uncovered as well as for the tales that the
>imagination can conjure up about the travels and daily lives of the

And...? There's still nothing direct to say that these Altaic remains are
from IndoEuropean speakers. Absolutely nothing. It is a matter of
the very thing that disgusts you about comparative linguistics. And if we
are to depend on linguistics at all to solve a linguistics problem, there's
nothing suggesting that your wonderful Altaic proposal is true either.
Quite the opposite.

What a bundle of twisted irony you are.

>No language cohesion there. Then expand this family of 10 to encompass a
>small city of 50,000. Will that city have "language cohension"?

What are you ranting about? Of course there is cohesion, otherwise they
wouldn't be able to understand each other! Plus, there is a commonality in
vocabulary within a family, a town, a city and a country. Again, what on
earth are you talking about now? You really have a strange concept of logic.

>Actually Glennie, language evolution can never be determined. I give up.
> >Don't you?

Hmm, more arcane statements. Can you please translate your point in English?

>Sounds like something Mallory presented when he drew a map of the pink guys
>and the blue guys. [...] Major problem with Mallory's blue guys and pink
>guys is in assuming that each group was either all pink or all blue. IMO,
>both pinks and blues were multi-colored to begin with.

Hmm, what it really sounds like is that you're one of those "individualist"
types who strives to be different and original, probably originating from
a need to have attention as a child. Just like me! Unfortunately, the idea
above that you've come up with is perfectly mainstream. Multilingualism then
could very well have been common. Still, that doesn't mean that there isn't
a region of highest concentration of a certain language. Hence, drawing maps
is still a valid exercise to do.

In the end, I don't know what you're fighting here.

- love gLeN

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at