Print

Print


I meant "in an archaeological context", and should have said so explicitly
obviously.

Den tis 21 maj 2019 22:59Jim Thain <[log in to unmask]> skrev:

> The only part of your answer I have real problems with is: "most linguists
> are aware that
> only writing tells us anything about language."
>
> In which case the comparative method is bunk?
>
> I recently watched a program (Nova: The first Horse Warriors),
> in which they linked PIE to a culture they call the Yaminaya.
> I would call that linking tentative, we probably don't know enough about
> them
> to be sure if they are the tribe, or collection of tribes, that eventually
> overran most of Europe.
> However these people did come from the area that 'most' linguists agree was
> the IE 'homeland'.
> We can't know for sure wether that is absolutely true, but it is a
> plausible theory.
>
> Writing IS very helpful in nailing these things down, and giving us
> literally hard evidence,
> But there is a lot of soft evidence that PIE was spoken in a certain broad
> geographical area.
> There is archeological evidence of the people living in that broad area.
> The trouble comes with linking the right people to the right language.
> It is, in the absence of writing very difficult, but writing came about
> fairly recently.
> So we break things up into History, what happened after writing was
> invented, and
> Pre-History, which is much more ephemeral, even with hard archaeological
> evidence.
>
> Probably one of those things we will never be entirely sure of short of
> time travel unfortunately.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 8:19 AM BPJ <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > It's because some people are overly optimistic about
> >
> > 1. Extrapolating conclusions about PIE culture from shared vocabulary
> which
> > supposedly is inherited. This is possible in principle but rather
> limited.
> > Also there is such a thing as migratory words (Wanderwörter in German).
> >
> > 2. Extrapolating from real or supposed common mythology and religion.
> This
> > is possible in principle but a lot of mythology and religion was borrowed
> > from other neighboring/substrate cultures and a lot was innovated by each
> > IE culture. Sorting it out is highly speculative and often says more
> about
> > the beliefs and prejudices of the modern real or supposed scholars. A lot
> > of such stuff from the century around 1900 is strongly influenced by
> Nazism
> > and its precursors.
> >
> > 3. Connecting PIE with this or that archaeological culture. Although this
> > has been very popular among real or amateur archeologists in recent
> decades
> > all real language scholars see it as pure speculation. The arrival of
> > Indo-Aryan in India can be dated pretty well, but other than that when
> and
> > where PIE or any of its descendants was spoken in prehistoric times is
> mere
> > speculation. In the absence of (phonographic) writing archaeological
> > remains can't tell you which language(s) their owners spoke.
> >
> > Unfortunately some people are all to ready to mistake their own or
> others'
> > speculations for facts. This happens to some degree on the Finno-Ugric
> > scene too. In both cases by archeologists who can't see their own
> > linguistic incompetence or by total amateurs, very seldom by linguists
> who
> > can't see their archaeological incompetence — most linguists are aware
> that
> > only writing tells us anything about language.
> >
> > Den tis 21 maj 2019 15:23Leonardo Castro <[log in to unmask]> skrev:
> >
> > > Em qua, 15 de mai de 2019 às 17:35, Jyri Lehtinen <
> > [log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > > escreveu:
> > >
> > > > Or you can do comparative work and look at how well cultural traits
> > like
> > > > shared mythological elements inherited from a distant common ancestor
> > do
> > > > over millennia. Think for example such distant relatives as Finnic
> and
> > > > Samoyedic or Celtic and Indic. If you do your homework, you will find
> > > > shared elements in their mythologies that are still recognisable
> after
> > > all
> > > > that time, but you'll also notice that these are heavily mixed with
> > other
> > > > material that draws from unrelated sources. In other words, the fact
> > that
> > > > you can find inherited cultural similarities over long distances
> > doesn't
> > > > mean that it would be a simple task to do.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's intringuing that I can easily find texts on the Internet about a
> > > hypothetical Proto-Indo-European culture or society, but it's hard to
> > find
> > > even incipient attempts of culture reconstructions for other
> > > proto-languages. It that because we really have much more information
> on
> > IE
> > > languages? or because most linguists are speakers of IE languages
> > > themselves?
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_society
> > > https://www.jstor.org/stable/124298?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
> > > https://sindhueuropayom.fandom.com/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans
> > >
> > >
> > > Até mais!
> > >
> > > Leonardo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >    -Jyri
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ke 15. toukok. 2019 klo 20.29 Jörg Rhiemeier ([log in to unmask]
> )
> > > > kirjoitti:
> > > >
> > > > > Hallo conlangers!
> > > > >
> > > > > On 15/05/19 14:02, Jyri Lehtinen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Think of it like this. Both language and culture are carried by
> > real
> > > > > living
> > > > > > people, so there's going to be at least local correlation between
> > the
> > > > > both
> > > > > > of them and population genetics. But it's equally true that we
> > don't
> > > > > learn
> > > > > > either our language or our culture solely from our family and
> both
> > of
> > > > > these
> > > > > > can in fact undergo quite drastic shifts. Moreover, since
> cultural
> > > > > > practices tend to diffuse more readily than language, you can't
> > make
> > > a
> > > > > > one-to-one connection between the shifts in language and culture.
> > > Over
> > > > > time
> > > > > > you will then loose the connection between linguistic kinship and
> > the
> > > > > > shared cultural heritage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes - there are sufficient examples of peoples with similar
> cultures
> > > but
> > > > > dissimilar languages and vice versa. Consider your own people, the
> > > Finns
> > > > > - linguistically more closely affiliated with the Saami than the
> > > Swedes,
> > > > > but culturally more similar to the Swedes than the Saami.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> > > > > http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>