real proto-lang

[Ante Aikio]

On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, petegray wrote:

> This is the "abstractionist" way of understanding reconstruction.  It has
> also been applied to reconstructed phonemes.   "Abstractionists" would claim
> that PIE *bh, *kw  etc are simple symbols denoting the set of relationships
> between the reflexes of *bh, kw  etc in the attested languages.

> Fine and dandy, but we must ask if something is lost.  The abstractionist
> position appears (from the little I know) to be losing ground rapidly,
> because of the advances in our understanding of PIE based on a more realist
> approach, which treats our reconstruction as a real language.

> Firstly there is all the debate - on this list and elsewhere - about
> homeland, where and who and what pots and what grave customs and so on.  If
> the reconstructed language is merely a "tool of comparative linguistics"
> then these questions are closed down.

> Secondly there are questions of how such a language would actually work.
> Typology comes in here, but not only typology.   The "new sound" of PIE
> would not have arisen if *bh etc had been seen purely as an abstract tool
> for comparisons.

> So while at one level I relate to your idea, at another I think there are
> advantages in treating our reconstructions as if they were actual spoken
> human languages - even while admitting the limits of our knowledge.

I don't think the two positions discussed here really contradict each
other. Cannot one say that the "abstractionist position" is merely the
result of the application of the method, whereas everything beyond this
is an *interpretation* of this result?

Regards,
Ante Aikio