Dating the final IE unity

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I wrote:
<<This is interesting.   2000yrs from modern Romance language back to Latin?
2000 yrs from Myceanaean, Sanskrit and Latin back to what?>>

In a message dated 2/22/00 1:30:33 AM, JoatSimeon at aol.com replied:
<<-- yup, PIE.>>

I wrote:
<<Do the similarities between Latin and Hittite 'leap off the page" as you
say?>>

JoatSimeon at aol.com replied:
<<I was referring to Latin, Sanskrit, and Greek.>>

Well, I wasn't.  I intentionally asked you that question and for a very good
reason. Here's the part I wrote that you left out -

<<2000 yrs from Myceanaean, Sanskrit and Latin back to what? PIE? Not likely.

Because even if Mycenean, Sanskrit and Latin were as
'undifferentiated' as is claimed above, this group HARDLY REPRESENTS THE FULL
RANGE OF DIFFERENCES that emerge out of the darkness of 4000 years, do they?>>
(Caps mine.)

This part you left out is crucial.  Because it means that your 'leap off the
page' test does not work on Hittite (@1500BC) or Thracian (@500BC).  And
although it may be convenient to brush them off, they will not go away.  (We
have full texts by the way in Thracian, but nothing "leaps off the page" to
say the least.)

The fact is all you accounted for with the "leaps off the page" criterion is
some kind of proto-Mycenaean-Sanskrit-Latin.  But you CAN'T logically use
those three ONLY to get back to PIE.  Otherwise your PIE is only the ancestor
of some IE languages - which would be truly, as you say <<another bizarre
statement.>>

Here's the other section that was partly edited out:

<<And what does Hittite (for starters) add to the total 'differentiation'
between the first attested PIE languages?  If 2000 years separates Latin and
Sanskrit, Hittite should certainly add another 2000 years, wouldn't you say?>>

JoatSimeon at aol.com replied:
<<nothing, since Hittite is universally considered to be a special case; and
you're changing the subject again.>>

No, you are changing the subject.  The subject is PIE.  And if Hittite is IE
and happens to be attested before Sanskrit or Latin, then THAT IS THE
SUBJECT.  (And let's not make everything a special case that contradicts your
claim that the first IE languages were undifferentiated.)

Remember what YOU wrote when you started this?

In a message dated 2/2/00 12:43:52 PM, JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:
<<The IE languages when first encountered are NOT DIFFERENTIATED ENOUGH to
have been separated by that depth of time!>>

Well, the first encountered IE languages include Hittite, Luwian, Thracian -
all before Latin.

Here's your chance to account for why Mycenaean, Latin and Sanskrit can give
you a date for PIE, but why somehow it is necessary to exclude the other
first encountered IE languages - in fact the first two encountered IE
languages.  I mean you wouldn't be excluding them because they are
DIFFERENTIATED ENOUGH to move your date way back - by whatever measure you
are using - would you?

JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:
<<the word for "fire" in Sanskrit and Latin:
Nom. sing.      agnis           ignis
acc. sing.      agnim           ignem
dative          agnibhyas       ignibus>>

I replied:
<<...do all these languages decline <fire> with only a change in the initial
vowel... thus justifying a 2000 year separation between all of them.>>

Let's get back to this proof you offered.  Does Mycenaean decline 'fire' the
same similar way as Latin and Sanskrit?  Does Hittite?  And how many extra
years do you put on the fact that they don't?  Or do you only count evidence
of little differences and disregard evidence of big differences?

JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:
<<It's 'tatis tiwaz' and 'tiyaz papaz' in Anatolian (Luvian and Palaic,
specifically); same meaning -- "Sky Father" or "Father Sky".>>

Well, it seems that Anatolian is in the picture when the evidence helps, but
not when it doesn't.

JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:
<<Germanic has, of course, a reflex of the same term:  tiwaz.>>

Of course.  And where exactly does it have it, by the way?

Regards,
Steve Long