01-13-2006, 02:08 AM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabara...sage/20593
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Paul Kekai Manansala" <p.manansala@...>
Date: Thu Jan 12, 2006Â 8:35 am
Subject: Re: Jared Diamond on the Indo-European Expansion pinatubo.geo
Online Now Send IM
Send Email Send Email
--- In akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com, "Bala Pillai" <bala@a...> wrote:
>
> HYPERLINK
>
"http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/diamond.html"http://users.cyberone.com.a
> u/myers/diamond.html
>
>
>
> {p. 235} By such methods, linguists have been able to reconstruct
much of
> the grammar and nearly 2,000 word roots of the mother tongue, termed
> proto-lndo-European but usually abbreviated as PIE.
This to, put it mildly, is an exaggeration.
Despite all the hoopla, the vast majority of PIE reconstructions don't
comply with the stricter rules of reconstruction mentioned in most
standard linguistic works.
For example, in most cases reconstructions are not found in all
branches of IE, something now used as a requirement in reconstructing
other language families.
Many reconstructions use the highly controversial laryngeals, of which
there has never been agreement in the IE linguistics field.
Most reconstructions do not use strict one-to-one sound and vocabulary
matches, but instead suggest things like affixation, reduplication,
and fuzzy semantics. Pokorny, for example, is known for using
suggested morphological changes in theoretical root words to make his
reconstructions.
Some incredible suggestions have been made about PIE. For example, it
is suggested that PIE came into heavy contact with Proto-Uralic and
lent many words to the latter without having borrowed any words
itself. Indeed this unlikely scenario helps prop up the controversial
laryngeal thesis.
PIE is practically non-falsifiable and has become sacrosanct and
unquestionable. Thus, it is more an article of faith than anything
else. If you ask someone to refer you to a reference that explicitly
lays out all the evidence for PIE in a simple concise listing, they
will fuzzily refer you to "150 years" of diligent research and
investigation.
This is about the same amount of time that racial science has existed.
Comparative linguistics and philology have become the refuges of
Aryanism because they are so arcane and have little overlap with other
practical fields. In genetics and biological anthropology, there are
now so many 'people of color' in these or related fields that things
have become increasingly transparent to the ordinary person.
For this reason, comparative linguistics and philologists have claimed
that their conclusions act as trump cards over other forms of research.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://sambali.blogspot.com/
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Paul Kekai Manansala" <p.manansala@...>
Date: Thu Jan 12, 2006Â 8:35 am
Subject: Re: Jared Diamond on the Indo-European Expansion pinatubo.geo
Online Now Send IM
Send Email Send Email
--- In akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com, "Bala Pillai" <bala@a...> wrote:
>
> HYPERLINK
>
"http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/diamond.html"http://users.cyberone.com.a
> u/myers/diamond.html
>
>
>
> {p. 235} By such methods, linguists have been able to reconstruct
much of
> the grammar and nearly 2,000 word roots of the mother tongue, termed
> proto-lndo-European but usually abbreviated as PIE.
This to, put it mildly, is an exaggeration.
Despite all the hoopla, the vast majority of PIE reconstructions don't
comply with the stricter rules of reconstruction mentioned in most
standard linguistic works.
For example, in most cases reconstructions are not found in all
branches of IE, something now used as a requirement in reconstructing
other language families.
Many reconstructions use the highly controversial laryngeals, of which
there has never been agreement in the IE linguistics field.
Most reconstructions do not use strict one-to-one sound and vocabulary
matches, but instead suggest things like affixation, reduplication,
and fuzzy semantics. Pokorny, for example, is known for using
suggested morphological changes in theoretical root words to make his
reconstructions.
Some incredible suggestions have been made about PIE. For example, it
is suggested that PIE came into heavy contact with Proto-Uralic and
lent many words to the latter without having borrowed any words
itself. Indeed this unlikely scenario helps prop up the controversial
laryngeal thesis.
PIE is practically non-falsifiable and has become sacrosanct and
unquestionable. Thus, it is more an article of faith than anything
else. If you ask someone to refer you to a reference that explicitly
lays out all the evidence for PIE in a simple concise listing, they
will fuzzily refer you to "150 years" of diligent research and
investigation.
This is about the same amount of time that racial science has existed.
Comparative linguistics and philology have become the refuges of
Aryanism because they are so arcane and have little overlap with other
practical fields. In genetics and biological anthropology, there are
now so many 'people of color' in these or related fields that things
have become increasingly transparent to the ordinary person.
For this reason, comparative linguistics and philologists have claimed
that their conclusions act as trump cards over other forms of research.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://sambali.blogspot.com/
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->