IE "Urheimat" and evidence from Uralic linguistics

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

"petegray" <petegray at btinternet.com> wrote:

>Miguel said:
>>Now define "single" and "unified".

>If anything, this reinforces my point.   The assumption that genetically
>related languages must by definition go back to a single ancestor
>over-simplifies the realities of language.   Is there ever a "single,
>unified" language?

No.

The "genetic" model is a simplification, of course.  Thankfully,
it works well enough in most cases (just like the
(over)simplification "species" [only real twins/x-plets have
exactly the same DNA] works well enough in biology, in most
cases).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl