----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] Origins of
I-E
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.
Glen writes:
>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.
GRW: You know, you COULD be "right on". Mallory the
peacemaking globalist just COULD have inspired (or clouded) his mapmaking
ability with a political agenda. Pin-pointing an area for I-E origins
though is as politically motivated as is including a "broad swatch".
Whether one is "politically correct" or "politically incorrect", it all spells
doom. Whoever wrote "The End of History; the last man" (was it Fukuyama)
had it "spot on". We're at the end of the line. Now what?
Gerry:
>Didn't mean for you to get THAT excited.
Glen:
You're always a source of excitement :)
GRW: :-) At least I'm a source
of something.
Gerry:
>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.
Glen:
Nothing radical there.
GRW: Great! Then if all humans were
originally mixed and all languages were originally mixed, then what are you
doing looking for where this homeland originated? Now that's really
foolish! Plus you have a huge following of flag-waving irrationalists
chomping at the bit.
Gerry:
>What demonstrates a language
in the archaeological record? Only the
>morphological identity of
the people as determined by skeletal calculations
>(and now their
DNA).
Glen:
And you don't see the logical problem with this???
GRW: No. Please explain? That
is if you can.
>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.
GRW: No. I was simply commenting on
compiling a vocabulary for the folks from the Altai which would differ from
beach combing folks along the Mediterranean. Because the lifeways of
both groups are different, so should be their vocabulary.
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.
GRW: All of us are bundles of twisted
irony. Rather than simply dwell on the physical evidence (archaeology)
one needs to add conjecture to tell tales of the lifeways. How's that
for an about face?
>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.
GRW: "Language cohesion" has meaning only if one investigates it on
a scale of similarity/differences. First off, no two people share the
same experiences thus no identical vocabulary. Yet, two people be they
from within a family, a town, a city and a country
can understand each
other. Even two people from different countries who speak two totally
different languages can still make themselves understood, one to the
other. What's strange about that?
>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?
GRW: Isn't "rubbish" a favorite term of
yours? I shall borrow it an claim that comparative linguistics is
"rubbish". So is language evolution. Now it's your turn to prove
me wrong.
>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.
GRW: Name me ONE area that today has
speakers who only know ONE language and I'll kiss a frog. Your maps that
you love to draw keep changing on a monthly basis. And the way activity
has quickened during the past year, we might even claim that change occurs
weekly. Hey, if you've got unlimited funds, pursue your drawings of
language maps. Those with Independent Wealth can pursue whatever they
wish.
In the end, I don't know what you're fighting here.
GRW: Not really fighting anything. If
one needs to pursue language studies (i.e. comparative linguistics) to have a
base line as a new World Language emerges, then that study needs to
proceed. Trying to retrace past languages and their origins is what is
problematic (not to mention the intense nationalism that's attached to country
(and thus language) boundaries.