The Indo-European Hypothesis [was Re: The Neolithic Hypothesis]

[Nik Taylor]

Ray Hendon wrote:

> Earlier, Glen Gordon wrote:

> "However what defines a particular language as unambiguously unique from
> another? How do we define "English"? There are many dialects of English. Do
> we consider all the English dialects as part of a single
> language or consider them seperate? How many dialects should there be
> of English? At what point do the differences between one speech form
> and another become insignificant or significant in these definitions?
> Should Proto-Indo-European, Germanic or the descendant of English
> 500 years from now be considered "English"? What number of people need
> to speak a particular speech form before it is considered a seperate
> and statistically significant speech form. Is Eyak a real language?
> What about artificial languages like Esparanto (some million or so
> strong so I hear) or Klingon (you know how prevalent Trekkies are)?
> Etc...."

This has an analog with other fields like biology.  In most cases,
something like 99% of cases, there's no difficulty in determining
*synchronic* species.  Chimps and gorillas cannot mate, therefore, they
are seperate species.  Analagously, without learning each other's
languages, a Spanish-speaker and an English-speaker cannot understand
each other.  Therefore, they are seperate languages.  There are
complications like dialect chains, where dialects A and D are mutually
unintelligible, distinct languages, but A & B, B & C, and C & D are all
mutually intelligible pairs.  This occurs in biology as well, subspecies
A & B can mate, as can B &C and C & D, but A & D cannot.  Perhaps a good
example might be dogs, a chihuahua and a St. Bernard probably couldn't
mate (altho artificial methods might make a hybrid, provided the mother
is the St. Bernard), but they're considered the same species.
Diachronic, on the other hand, is purely arbitrary.  H. Erectus and H.
Sapiens are considered seperate species.  In all liklihood, we could not
mate with them, were some to be brought forward in time.  Yet, where you
draw the line is entirely arbitrary.  In the same way, Old English is
often said to have begun in 450 AD, when the Anglo-Saxons invaded
England.  Is that English?  We couldn't understand them if they came
forward in time.  English's descendant 20 years from now will be very
much the same as now, the differences will be minor.  200 years from now
is a bit larger, but probably still intelligible to us.  2000 years from
now will be a totally distinct language.  When did it "become" this
language?  That'll be an arbitrary decision for linguist in 3999.  Or
maybe they'll continue to call their language "English", and just make
more divisions, just as "Greek" goes back thousands of years to Ancient
Greek.

--
"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
was hanged." - Irish proverb
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-name: NikTailor