Dating the final IE unity

[Richard M. Alderson III]

On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Steve Long (X99Lynx at aol.com) wrote:

> Well, even my quote given above includes a pretty good indication of what
> kind of difference I was talking about <<roughly 4000 years separates
> non-Anatolian PIE from Mycenaean (1200BC), Sanskrit (1000BC?) and Latin
> (500BC)>>

The original text reads "Following Renfrew, roughly 4000...", which I of course
ignored in answering the (to me) *real* question, which was (from his earlier
post):

>> How 'differentiated' are those three languages?  On a scale of 1 to 10?

The answer to this question *should* lead one to question, strongly, Renfrew,
but apparently it does not, as witness the following:

> You see, my guess has always been that there is NOTHING in comparative
> linguistics that in some scientific way clearly DISPROVES Renfrew's dates.
> And although professional impressions have weight, they cannot be dispositive
> on scientific issues.  Nothing so far has scientifically disproven Renfrew's
> dates.

[ ... ]

> I haven't found a single instance of anything resembling an objective,
> reproducible method of measuring time/difference in languages.  If it is an
> art, that is fine.  But then the objection to Renfrew's dates are artistic,
> not scientific.

Under this regimen, Renfrew's dates are artistic as well, as he has no evidence
for his claim that the Neolithic farming spread is to be equated with that of
the Indo-European languages.  So let's be honest about what we're rejecting,
and why.

> (I have found exceptions to what I've just written in the textbooks, but they
> all deal with glottochronology - e.g., Robert Lee's formula for calculating
> 'time depth' given by Lehmann (1992, p.176) at least attempts to quantify
> elements and just as importantly offers reproducibility and a measure of
> possible error - requirements these days in real science.)

It has been demonstrated, time and again, as each generation re-discovers the
mistake that was glottochronology, that there is no possible measure of rate of
change in language.  Take the two grossest examples with which I am familiar,
Greenlandic Eskimo and Icelandic:  The rate of lexical retention in the former
is 40% loss per century, in the latter 0%.

Real science, these days or any other, requires that things measured actually
be mensurable.  Rate of change in language is not.

> In this context, the persistent use of examples of cognates to prove some
> kind of time relationship is very troubling.

The "persistent use of examples" was due to a massive misunderstanding of what
it was you were actually asking (due, in part, of course, to a rejection of
some of your premises as untenable).  The reason for using those examples, and
any others, is to show how similar these languages are without having to teach
a full year course in Indo-European comparative phonology and morphology, as
that was the question as understood ("How 'differentiated' are those three
languages?"  "Not all that much.")

> When I brought up the fact that its the differences that should be measured
> and that agnis/ignis does not occur in Mycenaean or Hittite and that thay is
> the key difference, I got the following reply:

What you actually *asked* (Tue, 22 Feb 2000), and I noted that my answer was a
tacky cop-out, was:

>>> Does Mycenaean decline 'fire' the same similar way as Latin and Sanskrit?
                   ^^^^^^^
>>> Does Hittite?

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:48:36 -0800, Rich Alderson wrote:
> <<The answer to the question *as posed* is "Within the bounds of phonological
> change in the individual languages, yes, Mycenaean and Hittite decline their
> words for 'fire' similarly to Latin and Sanskrit. That is one of the defining
> characteristics of the IE family, after all."

and I stand by that answer.  The *declension*, that is to say, the *nominal
morphology*, of the different words for _fire_ in the four languages, is very
much the same.  What you *wanted* to ask, and did not, was whether or not the
*same lexical item* occurred in all four languages.  So it was a smart-ass
answer to an unintended question, for which I should be ashamed.

> I'll take that as a measure of time/difference, if by thae above it was meant
> that the 'phonological change in the individual languages' was going to be
> equated to a reproducible, objective meausre of time and change in languages.
> Yes, that is what I meant to ask.

No, the "phonological change in the individual languages" was not, and is not,
and never will be, "equated to a reproducible, objective meausre of time and
change".  Rather, it was a nod to the fact that the languages in question have
undergone some changes that happen to make the nominal endings opaque to the
non-specialist viewer.

> And the next question I'd have is how long does it take to come up with an
> -xi conjugation - which I understand to be a real difference between Hittite
> and the languages it is being compared to.

I assume you mean the hi-conjugation, and the answer is that there is no way to
know.  We have to explain the creation of the hi-conjugation, but we don't have
to say when it was created.  And the parts that go into it already existed in
PIE:  The stative ("perfect") endings, the *-i deictic ("here and now") also
seen in the so-called primary endings, the notion of adding the deictic to
past-time forms to create present-time forms.  So it could have been created
the Tuesday before the first Hittite text was written down--or it could have
existed from time immemorial in the Indo-European Ursprache and only have been
retained in Hittite.  But its simple existence tells us nothing either way.

I'll ask you a similar question in your own field, to show you why it is
meaningless:  What does the creation of the Clovis point tell us about when a
Neanderthal decided to put flowers in the gravesite at Shanidar?

> In the same post, I was quoted:
>>> Well, it seems that Anatolian is in the picture when the evidence helps,
>>> but x.not when it doesn't.

> The defense offered was:

>> But that's the way of *all* evidence in *every* discipline:  If there's
>> nothing to be said by a particular witness, you don't bother to call her to
>> the stand.

> Unfortunately, that is not true when the witness has contrary evidence to
> offer.  In many disciplines, failing to call her might then be considered
> falsifying.

[ ... ]

> There is much contradictory evidence here.

None of the evidence you have cited contradicts what linguists have to say
about Renfrew's dating, no matter how little you may like to hear that.

> I'm only contradicting the statement that Renfrew's dates are 'impossible'
> given the linguistic evidence.  At this point I can say that certainly is not
> true, by any scientific standard.

Renfrew's dates *are* impossible, by any scientific standard you care to name:
He has no evidence for any of his claims about the linguistic heritage of the
Neolithic farmers, only his own belief that migrations don't happen so this
*must* be what happened.

You, of course, don't see it that way, and don't see why anyone would see it
any other, so there's really no reason to continue to discuss the point.

								Rich Alderson