Print

Print


"blissfully ignoring the fact that PIE had terms for
things such as wheels and metals that were unknown back then"

This is one of my problems with historical linguistics as a whole.
The thing is the words we have, or don't have, don't do much for us
 to date PIE.
They can ONLY hint at when the LATEST PIE dialects may have been.
When you look at, for example, an etymological dictionary of English.
(you could likely use one for any modern language)
You get things like this:

tier (n.)

"row, rank, range," mid-15c., from Middle French tire, from Old French
tire (13c.)
"rank, sequence, order, kind," also "likeness, image; state, condition,"
probably from tirer "to draw, draw out" (see tirade
<https://www.etymonline.com/word/tirade?ref=etymonline_crossreference>).


In English before about 1550 this word did not exist.

You can date it exactly.

With our PIE roots we have no way of measuring this.

We don't know which PIE reconstructions are relatively ancient

going back to the earliest version of the language,

and which ones while looking like native words might not just be ancient
borrowings.

The possible time periods between say  2,000 and 8,000 years ago are so far
apart,

that it is possible that most of our PIE reconstructions could be
borrowings.

The whole thing is very flimsy to start with and trying to extend that goes
beyond flimsy.







On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:33 AM Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On 15/01/19 19:27, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
> > Pretty much all theories of directional language development have been
> > debunked, no? Languages don’t just simplify over time; they gain new
> > sounds, new syntax; phrasal intonation can turn into phonemic tone. At
> most
> > you could say there is a general tendency to evolve in the direction of
> > less work for the vocal apparatus, but when that leads to the loss of
> some
> > distinction new complications may arise to restore the distinction in a
> > novel way, even if it’s a net increase in production energy...
>
> Right. Also, Atkinson is not a linguist, though he dabbles in historical
> linguistics but without the necessary knowledge. He is notable as the
> co-author of an attempt to "prove" that PIE was spoken in Anatolia 9,000
> years ago by means of glottochronology (just ask Google for 'gray
> atkinson pie'), blissfully ignoring the fact that PIE had terms for
> things such as wheels and metals that were unknown back then (there were
> other problems with his family tree, too, such as classifying Polish as
> an East Slavic language and placing Proto-Romance in the Bronze Age).
>
> --
> ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
> "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
>