WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:45 am
The wave model is increasingly accepted by historical linguists, and still acknowledges the existence of a common ancestor language, just like the family tree model Talskubilos so vitriolically rejects. The only difference is that innovations spread laterally through the dialect continuum. The languages resulting from this process still show regular sound correspondences.
...
Talskubilos, it seems to me, rejects PIE wholesale and assumes that all resemblances between IE languages are due to diffusion across language boundaries. That is not the wave model as accepted by many historical linguists (and also by me, BTW), but merely a caricature thereof.
I'm not so sure that a long-standing linkage is so good at preserving regular correspondences. Do we not find that "every word has its own history".
This 'caricature' sounds rather like Trubetzkoy's theory of the origin of Indo-European. That doesn't match Tavi's conception as he conveys it.
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:45 amTalskubilos, it seems to me, rejects PIE wholesale and assumes that all resemblances between IE languages are due to diffusion across language boundaries.
As I said before, I think the IE family is the result of a series of expansions and replacements over several millenia instead of a single linguistic event. Therefore, the classical genealogical tree model would be at best an oversimplification of what actually happened.
ooookay...can you show us - ideally in a drawing or chart, maybe a timeline - where these "expansions and replacements" took place?
(and if you're saying that IE expanded, then you're implying that IE also got replaced - by what?)
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:45 amTalskubilos, it seems to me, rejects PIE wholesale and assumes that all resemblances between IE languages are due to diffusion across language boundaries.
As I said before, I think the IE family is the result of a series of expansions and replacements over several millenia instead of a single linguistic event. Therefore, the classical genealogical tree model would be at best an oversimplification of what actually happened.
How is this any different than the established model, according to which IE languages replaced and influenced each other over the course of several millenia, with two or three levels of substrates and adstrates in Europe being typical?
In particular, in western Europe we observe Romance and Germanic languages displacing earlier Celtic languages, whereas in eastern Europe there are the Slavic languages displacing various earlier IE languages; and throught all of this shebang various attested or unattested IE languages or language families are taking part, too.
Zju wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:49 pmHow is this any different than the established model, according to which IE languages replaced and influenced each other over the course of several millenia, with two or three levels of substrates and adstrates in Europe being typical?
In particular, in western Europe we observe Romance and Germanic languages displacing earlier Celtic languages, whereas in eastern Europe there are the Slavic languages displacing various earlier IE languages; and throught all of this shebang various attested or unattested IE languages or language families are taking part, too.
Good point. The thing is by checking the +2000 lexical items reconstructed for PIE, we can find instances where a root A is related to a root B (and sometimes even to a root C), with different sounds correspondences to external (i.e. from non-IE language families) comparanda. Thus my conclusion is we'll need at least 2-3 different protolanguages as a kind of "imploded" Nostratic.
Zju wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:49 pmHow is this any different than the established model, according to which IE languages replaced and influenced each other over the course of several millenia, with two or three levels of substrates and adstrates in Europe being typical?
In particular, in western Europe we observe Romance and Germanic languages displacing earlier Celtic languages, whereas in eastern Europe there are the Slavic languages displacing various earlier IE languages; and throught all of this shebang various attested or unattested IE languages or language families are taking part, too.
Good point. The thing is by checking the +2000 lexical items reconstructed for PIE, we can find instances where a root A is related to a root B (and sometimes even to a root C), with different sounds correspondences to external (i.e. from non-IE language families) comparanda. Thus my conclusion is we'll need at least 2-3 different protolanguages as a kind of "imploded" Nostratic.
I notice you never answered my question above:
bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:41 pm
What exactly do you mean by “imploded” in this context?
Actually, let me ask a more specific question as well: do you believe that IE is a valid clade? Or is it a paraphyletic or polyphyletic grouping?
But does your latest comment mean that you consider IE to be a polyphyletic subset of Nostratic?
Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:05 pm
The thing is by checking the +2000 lexical items reconstructed for PIE, we can find instances where a root A is related to a root B (and sometimes even to a root C), with different sounds correspondences to external (i.e. from non-IE language families) comparanda. Thus my conclusion is we'll need at least 2-3 different protolanguages as a kind of "imploded" Nostratic.
Bear in mind that few people believe that there are as many as '+2000' trustworthy items in Pokorny; at lot of them are mere possibles. There are also the suspicions that some are doublets because they have been generalised from different phonetic contexts.
Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:56 pmBear in mind that few people believe that there are as many as '+2000' trustworthy items in Pokorny; at lot of them are mere possibles.
Mallory & Adams (2006): The Oxford Introduction to PIE and the PIE World is a more up-to-date reference, although not exactly a dictionary in the same sense than Pokorny's. It lists +2000 lexical items reconstructed for PIE, including "regional" words only found in some branches.
Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:56 pmThere are also the suspicions that some are doublets because they have been generalised from different phonetic contexts.
That's right, but I was referring to not-so-obvious (at least without external comparanda) relationships.
Last edited by Talskubilos on Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:10 pmI notice you never answered my question above:
bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:41 pmWhat exactly do you mean by “imploded” in this context?
Actually, let me ask a more specific question as well: do you believe that IE is a valid clade? Or is it a paraphyletic or polyphyletic grouping?
But does your latest comment mean that you consider IE to be a polyphyletic subset of Nostratic?
Not exactly, because "Nostratic" is a failed attempt to group PIE and other protolanguages into a classical genealogical tree in the same way PIE itself had been reconstructed. However, if you pinpoint the relationships between the reconstructed "PIE" items and othet language families (excluding obvious Wanderwörter and lookalikes), you'll get another kind of structure which would look like an "imploded" Nostratic.
keenir wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:38 pmooookay...can you show us - ideally in a drawing or chart, maybe a timeline - where these "expansions and replacements" took place?
I'm sorry I can't do it on my own at present, but I found something of the kind in the bibliography. Let me scan the book and upload the image, OK?
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:10 pmI notice you never answered my question above:
bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:41 pmWhat exactly do you mean by “imploded” in this context?
Actually, let me ask a more specific question as well: do you believe that IE is a valid clade? Or is it a paraphyletic or polyphyletic grouping?
But does your latest comment mean that you consider IE to be a polyphyletic subset of Nostratic?
Not exactly, because "Nostratic" is a failed attempt to group PIE and other protolanguages into a classical genealogical tree in the same way PIE itself had been reconstructed. However, if you pinpoint the relationships between the reconstructed "PIE" items and othet language families (excluding obvious Wanderwörter and lookalikes), you'll get another kind of structure which would look like an "imploded" Nostratic.
Sadly, that doesn’t help me much. You still haven’t answered either of my questions!
keenir wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:38 pmooookay...can you show us - ideally in a drawing or chart, maybe a timeline - where these "expansions and replacements" took place?
I'm sorry I can't do it on my own at present, but I found something of the kind in the bibliography. Let me scan the book and upload the image, OK?
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:33 pmSadly, that doesn’t help me much. You still haven’t answered either of my questions!
I'm sorry I can't, at least in the terms you've them formulated.
Why not? Let me repeat them again for maximum clarity:
When you say “imploded”, what exactly do you mean? (You have to mean something by it, else you wouldn’t have used the word.)
In your model of IE, is it a clade, paraphyletic, or polyphyletic? (And it has to be one of them! All proposed families fit into one of those categories.)
I’m not sure how that’s different to the standard model: that diagram has all of IE branching off a single PIE. Yes, it shows lots of substrates, but no-one’s arguing those don’t exist!
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:54 pmI’m not sure how that’s different to the standard model: that diagram has all of IE branching off a single PIE. Yes, it shows lots of substrates, but no-one’s arguing those don’t exist!
So imagine these substrates incorporated into the model. This would be the "imploded" Nostratic.
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:54 pmI’m not sure how that’s different to the standard model: that diagram has all of IE branching off a single PIE. Yes, it shows lots of substrates, but no-one’s arguing those don’t exist!
So imagine these substrates incorporated into the model. This would be the "imploded" Nostratic.
but thats still a tree
having a substrate influencing one or more IE branches, doesn't make that substrate automatically part of the family that the IE branch exists in, any more than me picking up, say, a Turkish accent, means I suddenly have Turks in my ancestry.
keenir wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:02 pmthank you for the image....but where is the collapse or being-gobbled-up you mensioned for/of some of those IE branches?
As I said before, this isn't my drawing, but it shows a series of expansions and language replacements conceptually (although not factually) similar to my own view.
keenir wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:02 pmbut thats still a tree
Certainly not a classical genealogical tree.
keenir wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:02 pmhaving a substrate influencing one or more IE branches, doesn't make that substrate automatically part of the family that the IE branch exists in, any more than me picking up, say, a Turkish accent, means I suddenly have Turks in my ancestry.
I'm afraid you didn't understand what I said. The thing is there aren't a single but several substrate layers running through the IE family.
You have to read the paper to understand how Tavi understands the diagram. The paper has the concept of a more westerly branch of IE that was overwhelmed by the central European expansion of IE. This is one of the IE substrates. There may be other branches that were overwhelmed by this expansion, or had some of their speakers absorbed by the expansion.
You may have heard of the NordWestBlock (NWB), a hypothetical IE branch that didn't undergo Grimm's law and contributed a lot to northwest North Germanic, including many of the non-Romance words beginning with p- in English. This would be shown as a lateral transfer from NWB to part of Germanic.
The heavy Scandinavian influence on English might be shown as a hybridisation of Old Danish and Old English, or more precisely, Anglian Old English. I'm not saying Tavi has given this episode any attention, but he may hypothesise similar situations.
Tavi, would you and if so how diagram the influence of P-Italic on Latin? There are quite a few Sabine words in Latin.
Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 5:48 am
You have to read the paper to understand how Tavi understands the diagram. The paper has the concept of a more westerly branch of IE that was overwhelmed by the central European expansion of IE. This is one of the IE substrates. There may be other branches that were overwhelmed by this expansion, or had some of their speakers absorbed by the expansion.
You may have heard of the NordWestBlock (NWB), a hypothetical IE branch that didn't undergo Grimm's law and contributed a lot to northwest North Germanic, including many of the non-Romance words beginning with p- in English. This would be shown as a lateral transfer from NWB to part of Germanic.
Yes, this was how I understood that diagram as well (though I hadn’t heard of the NWB before). But none of that suddenly means that Indo–European is no longer a tree!
bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 5:56 amYes, this was how I understood that diagram as well (though I hadn’t heard of the NWB before). But none of that suddenly means that Indo–European is no longer a tree!
But the thing is the genealogical tree doesn't represent areal influences between IE branches nor the various pre-IE languages surviving as substrates.
Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 5:48 amThe heavy Scandinavian influence on English might be shown as a hybridisation of Old Danish and Old English, or more precisely, Anglian Old English. I'm not saying Tavi has given this episode any attention, but he may hypothesise similar situations.
That's right. This is reflected in doublets such as shirt/skirt and many more.
Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 5:48 amTavi, would you and if so how diagram the influence of P-Italic on Latin? There are quite a few Sabine words in Latin.
Not to mention the Italic (both Q and P) substrate in Celtic (IMHO there was no Italo-Celtic node) and the lateral influence of Celtic in Germanic.
I actually agree that the tree model is an oversimplification (for all language families, not just IE), but I'm not sure I understand the leap from that to "all modern IE languages don't descend from a single ancestral protolanguage".
