The Neolithic Hypothesis

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

<<In a message dated 4/13/99 7:21:21 PM, JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:

<<People,..., change the way they speak all the time. >> (My snip)

In a message dated 4/9/99 11:38:19 PM, JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:
<<Languages change, but generally so slowly (on a human scale) that nobody's
conscious of it....>>

-- as the moderator pointed out, these statements are not contradictory.>>

Never said they were.  In fact they are partially true.  And that's the
problem.  They are the usual overstatements.

Taken as a plain statement, "people change the way they speak all the time"
can mean anything.  And it therefore proves nothing.  People also speak the
same an awful lot or they wouldn't understand each other.

I write posts about how language must have been kept from changing, given
that language changes all the time.  And you answer that language wasn't kept
from changing because it's changing all the time.

I write that well if Mycenaean didn't change in all those years, that's
unusual.  And you reply not really, "languages change, but generally so
slowly that nobody's consious of it..."  as if it mattered to why Mcycenaean
didn't change in all those years.

The fact is languages can change quickly, can change slowly, can change
internally or due to external causes, can change consciously and
unconsciously.

What caused the difference in the changes covered in the history of IE
languages seems very relevant to me.  By offering rules like "people change
the way they speak all the time" it should be burningly obvious that you're
adding nothing.

Steve Long