reality of PIE

[petegray]

Continuing the discussion on relationship:
(No doubt I will have to admit stupidity soon, but do bear with me as I try
to explain what I meant.)

As often it may be that terms are being used in different ways - probably my
fault!

Larry said:
> Without a tolerably unified PIE .....

Quite!   My point is that we cannot go beyond the "tolerably unified" and
speak of a single, undifferentiated language.   I thought this was standard
stuff.   To reconstruct PIE without allowing for some internal variety would
seem to me - in my innocence, and in light of the IE evidence - somewhat
doubtful.

Indeed, this very variety is what some of the glottalicists rely on - for
example, in order to link Skt /bh/ with Germanic */b/, both derived from
dialectic allophones (or "dialectophones") of b/bh.   That's just one
example - you know the kind of stuff I mean.   A single unified PIE is
certainly not what we can reconstruct, except as an artificial abstraction.

A more interesting  and slightly philosophical question is whether we
believe a perfectly unified pre-PIE is a necessity.   I am arguing that it
is not - that dialect variation within a language is perfectly normal, and
the daughter languages may indeed reflect that variation, and even show
mixing of the dialects (as modern English does).   Of course there are
examples of a single dialect spawning variant daughters, but I am
challenging the assumption that all daughter languages must - by
definition - come from a single undifferentiated original.

>>> Genetically related languages were once the same language.
On this, Larry said:
>The statement above is true ... by definition.

This begs the question I asked above, and also relies on questions of
definition - are we talking of a single unifed undifferentiated language?
That's the concept I am attacking.   It is not true *by definition* that
genetically related langauges derive from a single undifferentiated
ancestor.   It may be true by definition that they derive from closely
related forms of that language, but where is your evidence that all must
come from a single form of that language?   I think it is an assumption open
to challenge and debate.

>Languages which do not
> descend from a common ancestor are not genetically related.

Even if they descend from sister languages, which are themselves descended
from different dialects, which are themselves reflexes - maybe quite complex
ones - of an earlier dialect continuum - which is itself the result of
earlier close dialects - etc etc ....  So that there is no single unified
undifferentiated ancestor?   Or do you believe that there always must be a
single ancestor without variation?

Perhaps we are again using different meanings of "common ancestor" - yours
more loose, including variation, and mine excluding it in order to make the
point that a single dialect-free ancestor may not be necessary.

>Proto-Germanic, ..., looks nothing like a creole.

It was intended as an example, and I accept that it was a misleading one.

Creoles - how can you describe a Creole as descended from a single ancestor?
Doesn't his mean prioritising one of its "parents" over the other?

>the English plural

This was answered in another post - I accept that it is an expansion of an
English original.   But it was just an example.   Your restriction of
"related" to mean only "genetically related" means we cannot say, "English
shows a closer relationship to French than to Italian."   Instead we have to
spell out the nature of that relationship, and say, "English is equally
related to both French and Italian, but has been more deeply influenced
by... and so on."

I want to say both sentences have their place, and given the right
understanding of "relationship", both are true.   You appear to be saying
that the first is always wrong.  I would say it is only wrong if
"relationship" is understood purely in a genetic sense.

So I ask, is the only relationship two languages can have, a genetic one?
(Indeed you talk of "inventing non-existent "relationships", and confusing
these with
> genetic links?")
 What about Sprachbuende, etc?   There are other relationships - so why deny
them?   Why not keep the word "relationship" open, and specify "genetic"
when necessary?

Peter