IE to ProtoSteppe

[Glen Gordon]

[ Moderator's note:
  While I would prefer not to discuss this here when it is an on-going topic on
  HistLing, I can't in good conscience not post it and then post other items to
  which it has something to say.  So since it started out on the IE list, I'm
  posting it to the IE list rather than Nostratic (where I'd not be any happier
  to see it, really :-).
  --rma ]

Hi y'all,

I have transfered this N-word topic over to the NOSTRATIC list from the
INDO-EUROPEAN List. It really belongs in both but the IE world and the
moderator, stubborn as they both are :), are not ready yet for this kind
of discussion in the latter list. Sadly its likeliest pre-history and
those of the language groups it interacts with, is very important in the
discussion of IE and the geographical position of its range that we
eventually find:

ME (GLEN):
>>If we accept (as we should) that IE is genetically tied to languages
>>like Uralic and Altaic

JOATSIMEON:
>-- frankly, I think relationships at that time-depth are >unrecoverable
with any degree of confidence.

This illustrates one of my frustrations about debates on these lists
(and don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they exist and they are
necessary). You see, I'm trying to understand the logic that some employ
to deny external relationships with IE and I often find it gnawing at my
nerves because of its senselessness. (I know, even on the Nostratic
list, there are some who fight long-range genetic relationships in favor
of the Valley Girl's NULL hypothesis).

Now, I can fully understand that one can have the legitimate view that
_AT PRESENT TIME_, such things are not recoverable to a _strong degree_
as JS points out. This is a matter of opinion. However, should this stop
one from thinking and conjecturing beyond what we know in order to even
vaguely answer these questions of genetic relationship? How can a study
progress if one doesn't strive to progress with new ideas and to stretch
all that is known to its fullest volume? This is how any science in
general works and conjecture is a necessary component in good research.

Many will agree that IE is now reconstructable to a decent degree (at
least in terms of general vocab). So is that it? We just stop, fly our
hands up in the air and quit? Well, unless we have grown old of our
research, we take what we know and expand it, conjecture, find more
evidence, etc., so that we can reach a new level of understanding about
the field we're working with.

Therefore, why is it then that we have many on this list and others with
this illogical agnostic/defeatist attitude? Can we really place a limit
on what we can find out or learn at any given time? Again, no. We
ironically don't know enough to begin to calculate such a limit unless
we profess divinity of ourselves. We simply don't know what we will
discover or can discover and I hope no one will argue with that bit of
intuitive reasoning.

This problem fits the topic of external IE genetic relationship as good
as any. Do we know 100% that IE is related to Uralic? No. Do we know
100% that IE is NOT related to Uralic? No. Do we know 100% that IE
existed as we expect it does? No. Maybe 25%, 80%, maybe 95% or even 99%
but we can't say that it's proven for all time or without foundation of
"evidence" and wipe one's hands clean of it. The questions remain to be
answered, not ignored carelessly.

Thus it should be fairly apparent to people already what I'm getting at.
Until those wacky nuclear physicists back at the science lab discover
how to warp space-time back to the time of a given proto-language,
comparative linguistics will always be _pure theory_.

Since this is theory, Alexis' opinion is off-center. There can be no
unanimous distinction on what is dismissable "conjecture" and what
isn't. Ideally and preferably, to make a conjecture more probable, a
theory should be based on relevant evidence of some kind. Many times,
because this is a topic of linguistics, linguistical evidence is
supplied to validate a theory. Sometimes it's archaeoligical in nature,
or even (gasp!) genetic. Despite the type of evidence, though, "proof"
as such is really a matter of logic and relative probability. "Proof" is
defined by the degree of likelihood an idea has to overcome the barrier
of insignificance of its beholder and to stick it out from other
competing theories.

So here's my conjecture and let it's proof be Reason at last: IE is more
closely related to Uralic, Altaic and other "Eurasiatic" languages than
anything else.

What do IEists often say to this? "Can't be proven", "I don't think it
can be recoverable", "Pure hogwash" and that's that. This is where my
sense of logic starts paining me because here we find such a defeatist
attitude at work deceiving many into an ultra-conservative,
anti-research frame of mind that denies answers to questions simply
because the answers are purely probabilistic, not boolean. "Maybe"
instead of "is, without a doubt". Probability, however, is the vary
nature of comparative linguistics!

Surely IE is most likely related to something. No self-professed
linguist could possibly pretend that IE invented its own language (aside
from Pat in re of his Sumerian idea). So we go beyond that, we
conjecture, we allow ourselves to step beyond the obvious and fight for
more knowledge. We search for the most probable external links with IE.

We can't prove without a trace of uncertainty that IE is related to
Uralic and Altaic. We may not be able to prove it with a 25%
probability, a 5% probability, or even a 0.00001% probability. We can't
even measure the probability in realistic terms. The probability of the
theory on its own is not the point. The point is: in regards to any
other competing theories out there on IE external links (from NWC to
Benue-Congo), what is the MOST probable? What has the most weight? Is
this probability large enough over the other possibilities. Well, given
that language groups like Algic or other "Amerind" langauges have to be
an exceedingly low probability on this list of possibilities, we thus
CAN create a list of language groups ordered by their degree of
probability and, to the very least, answer vaguely the question of IE
genetic relationships (ie: "It's very, very, very unlikely that IE is
related to Amerind languages within the past 10,000 years").

The probability may appear "small" (a relative term to the beholder) but
in relation to all other theories possible in terms of genetic
relationship with IE, Eurasiatic languages are set miles apart from the
rest. If you disagree, don't just say "dunno". Agnosticism is blatantly
illogical. What is the most probable answer in all in your view? What is
your basis? Answer it, even if it is a vague and probabilistic answer.
Dare to have an opinion. It's reasonable to have one as long as you
understand that it has less weight over theories with large amounts of
evidence.

Even someone who thinks that we will never know for absolute surity,
must with any degree of sanity agree this hypotheses is the best
possible one we can have.

I really would like to crack the "can't-do-it-so-why-bother" reasoning
and talk realistically about these external relationships. I would
prefer to do it on the IE group where this discussion would be all the
more meaningful amongst those staunchly opposed to long-range comparison
but alas...

--------------------------------------------
Glen Gordon
glengordon01 at hotmail.com

Kisses and Hugs
--------------------------------------------