IE and Substrates and Time

[Ross Clark]

Peter wrote:

> Steve said:

> >1. Why do we assume that the IE languages would not act precisely like the
> >non-IE languanges and splinter into extremely local variations?

> You're making an assumption that doesn't fit the facts.   Some non-IE
> languages splinter, some don't.   New Guinea is very mountainous and a
> tradition developed of warfare between small local tribes.   Compare that
> Polynesia, a vast area, where different languages have indeed developed, but
> it is remarkably homogenous linguistically.   Some of the languages are
> mutually comprehensible, with willing listeners.   We cannot extrapolate
> from New Guniea and assume all the world followed that model.

> And in Polynesia, or course there are indeed thousands of years with slow
> language change.   One might think of Lithuanian...   Not all languages
> change rapidly!

Whoa! Let's keep the time scale in mind if we're using this
comparison.

    Polynesia: not much more than 2,000 years since Proto-PN,
        35 languages. Still a pretty clear family resemblance
        throughout, but time has not stood still. Comparable to
        Romance?

    New Guinea: 40,000 years since first human colonization, several
        hundred languages in several distinct families. Foley in his
        Cambridge Green Book on Papuan points out that at a very
        modest rate of differentiation this amount of time would have
        been enough to produce 10^12 languages from a single ancestor.
        Geographical factors have certainly contributed, but people
        tend to exaggerate their importance.

We could throw in for further comparison

    Vanuatu: 3,500 years since first human occupation, 100+
        languages, much more diverse than Polynesian, but all
        related. Probably at least 90 of these are from a single
        ancestor. A group of medium-to-small islands, most within
        sight of each other, no major geographical barriers.

This looks like the New Guinea pattern at a much earlier stage.
Foley and others mention Melanesian attitudes as placing a positive
value on local linguistic distinctiveness while freely borrowing
linguistic and cultural items from neighbours. Is this a peculiarly
Melanesian ethos? Or is it typical of human life before centralized
states take over? To return to IE -- how soundly based are linguists'
assumptions about what life was like in pre-state Eurasian
societies, particularly non-material factors like language attitudes?

Ross Clark