The Neolithic Hypothesis

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I wrote:
<<I have some reason to believe that a simple change in locale and neighbors
can account for the lexical or basic phonological differences between Greek
and Sanskrit in a relatively short time (much shorter than the 2000-3000 years
you've estimated.)  Ancient German and Latin traveled a much shorter distance
to become modern English and French in a much shorter time.>>

In a message dated 3/25/99 2:00:39 AM, mcv at wxs.nl wrote:

<<What has distance traveled to do with it?  The dialect of Lazio
didn't travel at all, and it's still very different from Latin.>>

But this is aside from the point being made.

The point was that the difference between Greek and Vedic Sanskrit and their
common ancestor could be explained geographically.

I was saying was that when speakers of a common language go to different
geographical locations, their languages will predictably lose commonality.

This is rather obvious and I'm sure you are making some other point, but I'll
address it just to be clear.  Distance in terms of geography will predictably
have an effect on the way two languages diverge from a common ancestor.

Otherwise we'd have to think that, say, the differences between Low and Upper
German had nothing to do with geographical difference.  From the names
themselves - geographical distinctions - distance did split these dialects.
Would the split between Low and Upper German have occurred if all the earlier
speakers have stayed in the same location?  Are we to think that the
difference between Norweigan and Danish would have developed anyway, even if
they were not geographically separated?

In an old post re "the Danube Homeland" dated 3/6/99, you wrote: <<Most
importantly, the "Kurgan" model cannot adequately explain the linguistic
facts.  The gap between Anatolian and the rest of IE is too large to be fitted
into the limited time allowed by the Kurgan movements into SE Europe.  The
unique features of Western languages like Germanic,... also remain largely
unexplained.>>  Aren't you suggesting that the "Kurgan" model - in terms of
time and distance -needs to "explain the linguistics facts" here?  Isn't "the
limited time allowed by the Kurgan movements" a function of distance?

And what about "peripheral conservatism?"  Isn't that really a matter of
distance or what is peripheral about?

<<I don't think you need external causes at all to account for
language change.  It just happens.>>

And this is so obviously untrue that I can only think that I've misunderstood
you here, once again.

[ Moderator's comment:
  Modern Icelandic has, until very recently, been unaffected by linguistic
  externals, yet it has changed radically in pronunciation from Old Norse.
  You have obviously misunderstood MCV's point:  Languages change, and they
  do so without external cause.  The existence of external forces in some
  kinds of linguistic change do not necessitate their existence in all forms
  of change.
  --rma ]

You've mentioned the possible 30% non-IE in German vocabulary.  If you accept
that possibility, the only way you can account for it is "external causes."
You mentioned that the way B-S may have obscured elements of Germanic or Greek
may have done the same to Armenian. These are causes external to the languages
themselves.

Conversely, if you mention the fact that German retains "archaic" features, it
assumes that change in this case DID NOT "just happen," but in fact failed to
happen.  If you don't attribute some external cause for this, then why is the
archaism in German so singular?  Chance?  Or isn't it more likely that
Germanic was either cut-off, isolated or geographically distant from the
"innovative core" - all external factors.

It may be valuable for methodological purposes to suspend consideration of
external causes in linguistics, but it cannot be correct to say that you don't
"need external causes at all to account for language change.  It just happens"
- especially if you are drawing general historical conclusions based on those
language changes.  If the linguistic evidence is going to assume no external
causes for change, then it can tell us nothing about external events.

<<What has distance traveled to do with it?... The distance, or rather the
amount of mutual contact, only determines whether two dialects
will change in the same direction or not.>>

This goes back to the original point, if Sanskrit or any of its proto-
predecessors "travelled," than the separation of distance would not only
reduce "mutual contact" with Greek or its predecessors, it would also explain
why they are different.  If nothing else, lack of mutual contact caused by
distance would have been enough for the languages not to change "in the same
direction."  But there are other things that happen to languages when they
travel and that is also obvious.  (E.g., Germanic in Britain becomes exposed
to Danish and Norman invasions that will influence English in ways that did
not affect continental Germanic.)

Finally, the statement that change "just happens" inverts the question really,
doesn't it?  If change is so inevitable, then why should there be any
commonalities left to find in IE languages?  Obviously, the key to this whole
thing is not what changed but what didn't.

It's not that when you give a "holistic" sense of difference between Greek and
Vedic, it does not carry weight.  But it also seems worthwhile to take a
closer look at some of the pieces that make up that holism.

The degree of continuity that you found in Greek/Sanskrit aorist may reflect a
shorter difference in time between the languages than 2500 years.  It is a
subtle and apparently unique feature for both languages to have and one that
would seem easy to lose.  And it may be more compelling as a continuity than
the differences between the languages that may have "just happened."

Regards,
Steve Long