The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread's Sequel

[Travis B.]

And the really stupid thing about this argument is that the comparative method doesn’t even necessarily fail in these cases: loanwords are detectable when they don’t follow the expected sound correspondences.

I was about to say that but you got to it first. Inherited words are obvious because they obey regular sound change in most cases, and when words are borrowed they typically don't follow regular sound change. This is how we know, e.g., despite the obvious similarity of Finnish kuningas to PGmc *kuningaz that kuningas is a loanword from PGmc into Finnic and not a word inherited by both PGmc and Finnic from a putative Proto-Indo-Uralic.

[WeepingElf]

This is something I personally favor in proto-language discussions. Just because a language is reconstructed as we know it does not mean that it as a language spoken by real people in the past is any different from any other language. PIE-speakers were real human beings just like any of us, not just figments of linguists' imaginations.

I disagree. A reconstructed proto-language would never be identical to the "real thing", among other reasons because of loanwords and cross-borrowing. In his book Archaeology and language, Collin Renfrew gives a funny example of Roman soldiers drinking beer and smoking tobacco at a café because these words appear in Romance languages and thus they would be attributed to Proto-Romance.

Umm, just because there have been common loans into languages throughout a family that cannot actually be projected back into their proto-language does not mean that proto-languages do not behave like any other human languages. Your argument here is "because of certain edge-cases such as putative comparata for beer and tobacco that reconstruction fails for, we throw all of comparative linguistics out the window and we pretend that proto-languages don't behave like real languages do".

Also, Renfrew beat up a strawman here. It is well known that the Romance words for 'beer', 'tobacco' and 'café' can be easily shown not to be inherited from Latin on the ground of their forms alone, without resorting to our knowledge that the ancient Romans did not have them - they do not show the right sound correspondences, and we know, for instance, that in Latin, /f/ occurs only immediately after a morpheme boundary, which is not the case in café.

Likewise, Talskubilos's notion that the mainstream Indo-Europeanists think of PIE as a pristine language without either a prehistory or contact with neighbouring languages is a strawman. There are plenty of academic linguistic treatises discussing just these things. That handbook writers tend to shy away from those topics is just because we know so little for sure, and it is a handbook writer's job to present what the majority of scholars agree upon, so you won't find speculations of this kind in a handbook.

Indeed, there are various theories about the origin of the nominative singular suffix *-s, but they do not really impact the mainstream opinion about s-mobile. Fact is, PIE had this suffix, for which reason ever, so it may have left its mark on following words, especially considering that an overt suffix for the least marked form of the noun made it vulnerable to a reanalysis that did away with it.

A rather weak explanation to me.

A rather weak argument, I must say

[Travis B.]

Likewise, Talskubilos's notion that the mainstream Indo-Europeanists think of PIE as a pristine language without either a prehistory or contact with neighbouring languages is a strawman. There are plenty of academic linguistic treatises discussing just these things. That handbook writers tend to shy away from those topics is just because we know so little for sure, and it is a handbook writer's job to present what the majority of scholars agree upon, so you won't find speculations of this kind in a handbook.

And the fact that linguists study these sorts of things is how it is commonly known that, say, PIE and PU are less close together than might seem apparent on the surface, because many supposedly related words (aside from my dead obvious example of kuningas/*kuningaz) are just too similar for comfort between the two families. Inherited words almost always vary due to sound change between them and their common proto-languages, so when linguists see two words in two adjacent language families that seem really similar, they start to suspect that they aren't inherited.

[Ketsuban]

Also, Renfrew beat up a strawman here. It is well known that the Romance words for 'beer', 'tobacco' and 'café' can be easily shown not to be inherited from Latin on the ground of their forms alone, without resorting to our knowledge that the ancient Romans did not have them - they do not show the right sound correspondences, and we know, for instance, that in Latin, /f/ occurs only immediately after a morpheme boundary, which is not the case in café.

The cherry on top is "beer" was absolutely inherited from Latin. The Vindolanda tablets have cervēsa, and cervēsia (found in Pliny's Natural History, 22.164.2) or *cervisia was the productive form in the Romance languages.

[Talskubilos]

Likewise, Talskubilos's notion that the mainstream Indo-Europeanists think of PIE as a pristine language without either a prehistory or contact with neighbouring languages is a strawman.

Not really. My point is what mainstream Indo-Europeanists call "PIE" is far from being one single language spoken by real people. That's all.

[Ketsuban]

That's a dubious distinction. If you zoom in on any language it disappears - the way I speak isn't the same as the way my mother speaks, the way they speak in London isn't the same as the way they speak in Manchester, the way we speak in the UK isn't the same as the way they speak in Oregon, but we still all agree we're speaking English. That there was idiolectal and dialectal variation in the population of "Proto-Indo-European" speakers doesn't mean that there was no "Proto-Indo-European" language; it just means that, like any language, it contained multitudes.

[Talskubilos]

That's a dubious distinction. If you zoom in on any language it disappears - the way I speak isn't the same as the way my mother speaks, the way they speak in London isn't the same as the way they speak in Manchester, the way we speak in the UK isn't the same as the way they speak in Oregon, but we still all agree we're speaking English. That there was idiolectal and dialectal variation in the population of "Proto-Indo-European" speakers doesn't mean that there was no "Proto-Indo-European" language; it just means that, like any language, it contained multitudes.

But English is still a real language, while PIE is a theoretical construct.

[Raphael]

That's a dubious distinction. If you zoom in on any language it disappears - the way I speak isn't the same as the way my mother speaks, the way they speak in London isn't the same as the way they speak in Manchester, the way we speak in the UK isn't the same as the way they speak in Oregon, but we still all agree we're speaking English. That there was idiolectal and dialectal variation in the population of "Proto-Indo-European" speakers doesn't mean that there was no "Proto-Indo-European" language; it just means that, like any language, it contained multitudes.

But English is still a real language, while PIE is a theoretical construct.

How so? Ketsuban's points demonstrate that whether any language, including English, "actually exists" is very much up for debate.

[Zju]

Likewise, Talskubilos's notion that the mainstream Indo-Europeanists think of PIE as a pristine language without either a prehistory or contact with neighbouring languages is a strawman.

Not really. My point is what mainstream Indo-Europeanists call "PIE" is far from being one single language spoken by real people. That's all.

Every historical linguist keeps in mind that our reconstruction of PIE is an amalgam reflecting multiple dialects spoken during different time periods. How does this add anything to the discussion?

[WeepingElf]

Likewise, Talskubilos's notion that the mainstream Indo-Europeanists think of PIE as a pristine language without either a prehistory or contact with neighbouring languages is a strawman.

Not really. My point is what mainstream Indo-Europeanists call "PIE" is far from being one single language spoken by real people. That's all.

Every historical linguist keeps in mind that our reconstruction of PIE is an amalgam reflecting multiple dialects spoken during different time periods. How does this add anything to the discussion?

Well, it seems as if Talskubilos questions the entire language family model. If I have understood him correctly, he thinks that there never was a common ancestor language of all IE languages, with dialectal divisions and time stages or without, but the IE languages converged towards each other by exchanging Wanderwörter. It is quite obvious that he hasn't grasped the notion of regular sound correspondences which rules out such a scenario, as is evident from him citing Renfrew, who hasn't grasped it either.

There really is no point discussing historical linguistics with Talskubilos. It is like discussing evolutionary biology with a creationist, or astrophysics with an astrologer.

[Zju]

Not really. My point is what mainstream Indo-Europeanists call "PIE" is far from being one single language spoken by real people. That's all.

Every historical linguist keeps in mind that our reconstruction of PIE is an amalgam reflecting multiple dialects spoken during different time periods. How does this add anything to the discussion?

Well, it seems as if Talskubilos questions the entire language family model. If I have understood him correctly, he thinks that there never was a common ancestor language of all IE languages, with dialectal divisions and time stages or without, but the IE languages converged towards each other by exchanging Wanderwörter. It is quite obvious that he hasn't grasped the notion of regular sound correspondences which rules out such a scenario, as is evident from him citing Renfrew, who hasn't grasped it either.

There really is no point discussing historical linguistics with Talskubilos. It is like discussing evolutionary biology with a creationist, or astrophysics with an astrologer.

Wait, whaat? Really? This can't be it.

[bradrn]

Every historical linguist keeps in mind that our reconstruction of PIE is an amalgam reflecting multiple dialects spoken during different time periods. How does this add anything to the discussion?

Well, it seems as if Talskubilos questions the entire language family model. If I have understood him correctly, he thinks that there never was a common ancestor language of all IE languages, with dialectal divisions and time stages or without, but the IE languages converged towards each other by exchanging Wanderwörter. It is quite obvious that he hasn't grasped the notion of regular sound correspondences which rules out such a scenario, as is evident from him citing Renfrew, who hasn't grasped it either.

There really is no point discussing historical linguistics with Talskubilos. It is like discussing evolutionary biology with a creationist, or astrophysics with an astrologer.

Wait, whaat? Really? This can't be it.

Yes, this is indeed it. (Clearly, you haven’t encountered Talskubilos before…)

[Zju]

I'm still in disbelief... Talskubilos, could you confirm if this really is what you believe?

[WeepingElf]

I'm still in disbelief... Talskubilos, could you confirm if this really is what you believe?

I am not sure about him, he is never explicit on his stance; but what I wrote is my impression from years of arguing with him.

[bradrn]

I'm still in disbelief... Talskubilos, could you confirm if this really is what you believe?

I am not sure about him, he is never explicit on his stance; but what I wrote is my impression from years of arguing with him.

I concur with this (although I haven’t known him as long as you have). He’s definitely denied the existence of PIE before, at least as commonly reconstructed. Beyond that, I’m not sure: he’s never been clear on what he believes instead. Sometimes, he sounds like he admits the existence of some common ancestor language which lacks most of the vocabulary usually ascribed to PIE; other times, he sounds like he denies a common ancestor entirely. And I’ve yet to see him seriously engage with the idea of regular sound changes.

[Talskubilos]

Well, it seems as if Talskubilos questions the entire language family model. If I have understood him correctly, he thinks that there never was a common ancestor language of all IE languages, with dialectal divisions and time stages or without, but the IE languages converged towards each other by exchanging Wanderwörter. It is quite obvious that he hasn't grasped the notion of regular sound correspondences which rules out such a scenario, as is evident from him citing Renfrew, who hasn't grasped it either.

Strawman.

There really is no point discussing historical linguistics with Talskubilos. It is like discussing evolutionary biology with a creationist, or astrophysics with an astrologer.

Ad hominem.

[bradrn]

Well, it seems as if Talskubilos questions the entire language family model. If I have understood him correctly, he thinks that there never was a common ancestor language of all IE languages, with dialectal divisions and time stages or without, but the IE languages converged towards each other by exchanging Wanderwörter. It is quite obvious that he hasn't grasped the notion of regular sound correspondences which rules out such a scenario, as is evident from him citing Renfrew, who hasn't grasped it either.

Strawman.

There really is no point discussing historical linguistics with Talskubilos. It is like discussing evolutionary biology with a creationist, or astrophysics with an astrologer.

Ad hominem.

[Zju]

Well, it seems as if Talskubilos questions the entire language family model. If I have understood him correctly, he thinks that there never was a common ancestor language of all IE languages, with dialectal divisions and time stages or without, but the IE languages converged towards each other by exchanging Wanderwörter. It is quite obvious that he hasn't grasped the notion of regular sound correspondences which rules out such a scenario, as is evident from him citing Renfrew, who hasn't grasped it either.

Strawman.

There really is no point discussing historical linguistics with Talskubilos. It is like discussing evolutionary biology with a creationist, or astrophysics with an astrologer.

Ad hominem.

Talskubilos, do you think Indoeuropean languages originated from a single protolanguage or not?

[Travis B.]

I'm still in disbelief... Talskubilos, could you confirm if this really is what you believe?

I am not sure about him, he is never explicit on his stance; but what I wrote is my impression from years of arguing with him.

I concur with this (although I haven’t known him as long as you have). He’s definitely denied the existence of PIE before, at least as commonly reconstructed. Beyond that, I’m not sure: he’s never been clear on what he believes instead. Sometimes, he sounds like he admits the existence of some common ancestor language which lacks most of the vocabulary usually ascribed to PIE; other times, he sounds like he denies a common ancestor entirely. And I’ve yet to see him seriously engage with the idea of regular sound changes.

Agreed. It is pretty much useless to argue with him.

[Talskubilos]

Every historical linguist keeps in mind that our reconstruction of PIE is an amalgam reflecting multiple dialects spoken during different time periods. How does this add anything to the discussion?

That's right. My own view is that the IE family is the result of a series (often complex) of expansion and replacement processes over several millenia, leading to several lexical strata in the reconstructed PIE. One example (but there're many other) would be the 'apple' words we've discussed before.