Sociological Linguistics

[Tom Wier]

Nik Taylor wrote:

> "Patrick C. Ryan" wrote:

>> So you do not believe fully modern man was present 200K BP? You are
>> definitely in the minority here.

> 30K is the generally accepted value, I believe.  PIE was spoken, what,
> about 8,000 years ago?  Assuming language appeared 30K BP (and probably
> much earlier), PIE is still quite recent.

There are about as many "generally accepted values" as there are
people discussing the issue. The fact is, we (the linguistic community,
the scientific establishment, whatever) don't really *know*.  Sure,
there are a lot of what are probably good *guesses*, but in terms
of any rigorous analysis of empirical data (like trying to guess when
language developed in modern man based on brain mass), no, there's
not much of that.  I've heard anything from a 500k years BP to what
you now use, which is the most recent I've heard of any figure (not
that that makes any difference in the matter).  Estimates about when
PIE was spoken (if we can call PIE a homogenous language at all),
are similarly much debated, and with equal murkiness and generality
in reasoning, often.

Nonetheless, as for what I *believe* about the amtter (not what
I can prove), I find it unlikely that PIE reflects much of any postulated
ur-unity.

>> We do not need a time-machine to reconstruct IE, do we?

> Yeah, and look at this list.  If PIE was unarguably reconstructed, there
> wouldn't be much of a list, now would there?  Because of the fact that
> it was spoken just 8 millennia ago, or whatever, how much less certainty
> would there be about proto-World?!

Right -- I don't think anybody can honestly and believably claim
that just by the methods of historical reconstruction we can actually
know what speech-patterns those hunter-gatherers in the Caucasus,
or in the Steppe, or wherever they were, were *actually* using sitting
around their campfires. Don't get me wrong -- I think we can have a
very good idea about it, but it won't be perfect.

In other words, we *would* need a timemachine if we really wanted
to know what they *actually* spoke, as opposed to our best guesses.

===========================================
Tom Wier <artabanos at mail.utexas.edu>
AIM: Deuterotom ICQ: 4315704
<http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
===========================================