Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!petrich
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Sanskrit: was: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
Message-ID: <petrichE19t9q.4Hn@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <54q9ou$85o_002@dialin.csus.edu> <572df2$1tq@fridge-nf0.shore.net> <572o70$9ku@frysja.sn.no> <572tef$g2g@fridge-nf0.shore.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:58:38 GMT
Lines: 53
Sender: petrich@netcom14.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.archaeology:56394 sci.lang:64726

In article <572tef$g2g@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whittet@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <572o70$9ku@frysja.sn.no>, kalie@sn.no says...

>>There is no IE text involved here, and I never said so.
>Do you have some other form of proof to offer which will explain
>why the theory you favor should be granted some more sacrosanct
>status?

	Extrapolation. Mr. Whittet, why don't you compare Latin and the 
Romance languages some time, or else read the abundant literature on this 
subject? There is a gap in written records between Latin and the Romance 
languages, but you can find out how it is possible to extrapolate forward 
from Latin and backward from the Romance langs to fill this gap.

>> In order to discuss the dispersal of IE languages, you first of 
>>all need a sound basis of knowledge about the said languages. 
>Not necessarily. The thing about it, is that languages are spoken
>by people. That makes a sound knowledge of the movements of people
>in the period under discussion equally valuable to a good theory
>as to the rules which govern their linguistics and that is where
>archaeology gets to put its two cents worth in.

	There you go again, Mr. Whittet, tediously spouting a whole lot of
elementary exposition. Why don't you look at the literature on language 
spread some time? And language change? If you suspect anything bogus in 
any of it, then make your case instead of whine about how the orthodox 
oxen won't take you seriously.

>To show that one people influenced another, linguistically or
>otherwise, you first need to find a mechanism which allows
>them to come in contact with one another. The only acceptable
>evidence of that mechanism is archaeological, not linguistic.

	That's elementary whining.

>>You must understand the varying forms of the words in related
>>languages, see how vowels and consonants change according to
>>deducable sound laws, see how grammatical patterns correspond,
>>etc. Krahe - or some other basic comparative grammar of IE - will
>>give you the basic facts from the known IE languages. These are
>>the bare facts.
>Thats all very nice, but first do step one. Show who contacted
>whom, where and when, and provide some archaeological evidence
>to prove the contact existed.

	Good Grief! What would *you* consider acceptable evidence, Mr. 
Whittet? 
-- 
Loren Petrich				Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com			And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html


