Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Greek kitharis

Expand Messages
  • bmscotttg
    ... Proto-World is normally taken to be the most recent common ancestor (if one exists) of all *known* language. I pointed this out before. [..] ... It is, by
    Message 1 of 53 , Jan 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@> wrote:

      >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:

      >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@> wrote:

      >>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:

      >>>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@> wrote:

      >>>>>> PIE as Proto-World?! Even Ruhlen has more sense than that.

      >>>>> I didn't say PIE was the original language, or the source of
      >>>>> all languages ever spoken.

      >>>> You did, however, say that it was the source of all known
      >>>> languages, which is what is normally meant by 'Proto-World'.

      >>> Not at all. There may be languages spoken that haven't been
      >>> discovered or examined by linguists, or not described at all
      >>> (or well enough for correct classification), and some
      >>> undeciphered languages obviously could be non-PIE.

      >> Irrelevant. Your statement, which for some reason you
      >> conveniently erased from this response, was:

      >>>>>>> All known languages not currently classified as IE are
      >>>>>>> actually from one branch of IE: Indo-Iranian.

      >> From which it obviously follows that all known languages are
      >> either currently classified as IE or in fact II.

      > Yes.

      >> Unless you
      >> care to maintain that some languages now classified as IE in
      >> fact are not IE, you very clearly *are* claiming that all
      >> known languages are IE. Which is lunacy.

      > No, I said it and it's true. What are you objecting to about
      > my response? I said there could be unknown languages that were
      > non-IE, etc., so PIE wouldn't equal "Proto-World" if there were.

      Proto-World is normally taken to be the most recent common ancestor
      (if one exists) of all *known* language. I pointed this out before.

      [..]

      > Your claim of my theory meaning there would be
      > an equivalency between PIE and PW is not so,

      It is, by the definition of PW with which I'm most familiar.

      > and you haven't given any reason for your apparent (continued)
      > misunderstanding.

      I did. You ignored it. From

      <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62326>:

      You did, however, say that [PIE] was the source of all known
      languages, which is what is normally meant by 'Proto-World'.

      But it really doesn't matter, since as far as I'm concerned you've
      completely destroyed any credibility that you might previously have
      enjoyed.

      Brian
    • Arnaud Fournet
      ... From: stlatos ... Unless this non IE language helps us getting aware of something previously gone unnoticed. A.
      Message 53 of 53 , Jan 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "stlatos" <stlatos@...>

        >
        > The reconstruction of PIE isn't affected by the evidence of a non-IE
        > language.

        Unless this non IE language helps us getting aware of something previously
        gone unnoticed.

        A.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.