Gerry:

>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.


Gerry:

>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
>inhabitants.

And...? There's still nothing direct to say that these Altaic remains are
from IndoEuropean speakers. Absolutely nothing. It is a matter of
conjecture,
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"?
>Absolutely
>not.

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 http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.