Renfrew's Celtic Scenario

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/10/00 1:27:28 AM, you wrote:

<<>@4600BC - A north western European version of [narrow PIE] arises
>@4000BC - An "early IE language" develops in parts of western Europe and
>north of the Alps.
>@3500BC -  Local differentiation in this 'early IE language' begins

This is even worse.  You now have local differentiation delaying for over
well 1000 years!!!!  That is absurd.  Given normal rates of language
change, this should have happened well before 4000 BC, probably by 4400 or
4500 BC (within your "Narrow PIE"). >>

No, you've misread this.  The path I ROUGHLY gave above suggests  "a
northwestern version" (versus e.g. eastern) (600 years) >"an early IE
language west and north of the Alps" (500 years) > "local differentiation"
(e.g. on the Brittany coast) (@3500) - nothing says that anything
identifiably Celtic would have arisen yet.

<<And an extra time depth of 600 years
from the branching off of Anatolian and the rest of PIE would imply a *far*
more differentiated Anatolian by its attestation ca. 1500 BC.  That's a
4000 year time depth.  That should make Anatolian about as distinct from
Sanskrit as Farsi is from Hindi!>>

Yeah, well as you know, I'm looking forward to exactly how you calculate this
differentiation - especially with Hittite and whatever you are
differentiating it from.  If your formula finds Hittite an awful lot like any
language, it sure would have saved Kurylowicz et al a lot of time and
trouble.

(And I don't know why you think Farsi and Hindi are more differentiated than
Hittite and Sanskrit - haven't a clue.  Are you talking about a numerical
degree of differentiation that can be demostrated?  Or is this some kind of
ironic reference to the influence of Dravidian?)

If this 'degree of differentiation' is based on your personal beliefs, that's
fine.  I have no argument with that.

But if this is supposed to be science, it really needs to be quantifiable and
reproducible - so we can feel confident that we are not being influenced by
your favorite personal theory.  As I said I can't be positive about any of
the things I've suggested.  But to call them 'absurd' takes a lot of
chutzpah, especially when you are doing it on the basis on what seems to be
nothing more than an impression.  (And references to what may be liturgical
languages.)

And of course to some mysterious measure of differentiation that can
conveniently tell us how much a language can change in 6000 years DESPITE THE
FACT we don't even have any direct evidence of languages older than 4000
years.

After reading again Arthur Barlowe's Roanoke Island account in 1588 that I
mentioned last post, I can mention one language at least that doesn't
differentiate much at all in the time it might take narrow PIE to turn into a
group of early IE languages.  But not yet Celtic.

Regards,
Steve Long