Dating the final IE unity (was: Re: GREEK PREHISTORY AND LANGUAGE)

[Stanley Friesen]

At 02:35 PM 10/17/99 +0100, Larry Trask wrote:

>This is precisely the position which Renfrew attacks.  And, to be fair, it is
>not difficult to point to cases in which prestige languages have spread,
>displacing earlier languages, without massive population movements.

And in this, I think Renfrew is probably closer to right than he is in
other areas.  Where he falls down is in failing to realize that this means
that even a subtle change in material culture can represent a switch of
language.

Indeed, I quite agree that IE probably spread largely by elite dominance,
with only the tribal overlords actually migrating to the new areas.  (Note,
prior to modern communications, language spread by elite dominance requires
that at least *some* speakers of the new language move into the new area).

In many ways, I see the spread of European languages to Polynesia, and the
spread of Latin into most of Europe, as the best models for the spread of
IE languages in prehistory.

>But Renfrew has expressly argued that many of these words are not substrate
>words at all, but rather late borrowings into Greek long after Greece had
>become Greek-speaking.

In many cases this is difficult to adequately maintain, since the words do
not correspond closely to the words in the likely source cultures.  Also,
place names based on late borrowings are a trifle unusual.   Even here in
the USA, most non-English place names are substratal (Amerindian or
Spanish), and we are notorious polyculturalists.

>This is exactly the point which troubles me the most.  But Renfrew has in fact
>met it head on in his latest paper on the issue, presented at a symposium in
>Cambridge last summer and due to be published in the proceedings early next
>year.

Well, unless he has *seriously* improved his argument on this from what he
presented in his book, it is woefully inadequate a response.

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima at ix.netcom.com