Re: Proto-Celtic

--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com,
"H.M. Hubey" <hubeyh@...> wrote:

>
>
> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "H.M. Hubey"

<hubeyh@...>

> > To:

<Nostratica@yahoogroups.com>

> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003

11:24 PM

> > Subject: Re: [Nostratica]

Proto-Celtic

> >
> >
> >
> > > If languages change at

different rates, then some of the
present-day

> > languages could actually be

aunts, or grand-aunts of others
instead of

> > being sisters. Is that not

logical?

> >
> > Sort of, to the extent that

human-family-based metaphors are

> > applicable to cladistic models.

Technically, we speak of
"sisterhood"

> > between taxa A and B if A and B

have the same _immediate_ ancestor,

> > that is when the last common

ancestor of A and B split into A
and B

> > and nothing else:
> >
> > Proto-AB --+--A
> > |
> > `--B
>
> What if A is still identical to

AB and that it was only B that
innovated

> and branched off? It seems we

should

> correct the model.

I think this is a question for
palaeontologists rather than
linguists. While it does happen in
biology, I think the only instances
in language occur when a language
becomes a 'classical' language,
such as French and Latin. Even
then, Mediaeval Latin did have its
own innovations.
Richard.
End--of--Message---

> >
> > A and B may be atomic taxa

("languages") or
clades("branches").

> >
> > Piotr
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.29601
06.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=17
05739206:HM/A=1464858/R=0/*http://w
ww.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300
_Cquo_1/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl>

> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group,

send an email to:

> >

Nostratica-unsubscribe@...
com

> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is

subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service

> >

<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
.