Latin, Sanskrit, Arabic

X99Lynx at aol.com X99Lynx at aol.com
Fri Sep 10 05:41:19 UTC 1999


In a message dated 9/8/99 4:06:14 AM, kurisuto at unagi.cis.upenn.edu wrote:

<<Second, the main point in Steve Long's hypothetical case was not merely
that a language could remain unchanged over time, but that daughter
languages could periodically branch off from it and innovate. >>

No it wasn't.  A main point in my hypothesis was that the Stammbaum was not
showing a language that it clearly assumed existed.  And that was a language
that shared none of the innovations that "created" the daughters.  This
narrow PIE or proto-language is always the one that is NOT INNOVATING on the
Stammbaum.

A corollary of that point is that a system like the Stammbaum that only
recognizes "innovations" would not recognize continuities, even if it were
right in front of its face.   That was the point of the "Celtic1.....Celtic6"
example.

<<So for the purposes of answering Steve Long's earlier post, I stick by my
original claim that the hypothetical situation he posed could not
have happened.>>

And I'll keep saying it doesn't matter.  The hypothetical does not ask total
lack of innovation.  It only needs the language to not share in any of the
innovations that cause branching in the Stammbaum.

And if you look closely and objectively, you'll see that is precisely the
language that the Stammbaum posits but does not show.

Regards,
Steve Long



More information about the Indo-european mailing list