Post 2:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(a) <i>IEL:</i> are all the languages that are considered Indo-European languages actually derived from PIE? Are they all related in the same way - that is, are they all genuinely IE languages?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another example of the questionmark that people put on IEL. The following was recently posted by Honsol in the Unmasking AIT thread.
(I have yet to read the whole article, so someone please tell me if you find it doesn't belong here)
<!--QuoteBegin-Honsol+Mar 20 2007, 08:18 PM-->QUOTE(Honsol @ Mar 20 2007, 08:18 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.gandirea.ro/linguistic_history_errors.php
 There are few philologists that do not realize that linguistics is now in a deadlock. For 200 years now, since William Jones first had an inkling of and made his statements concerning the origin of SanÂ
skrit, Old Greek and Latin from a mother-tongue (1786), many a brilliant mind have tried to reconstruct this extinct source-lan guage starting from its assumed offspring.
All such effort has proved useless: this mother-tongue is as little known now as it was 200 years ago, just as if nobody had ever even attempted to look for it.
1.2     The "Getica" magazine is meant to bring to the public eye obvious facts that have resulted from researches that cannot be denied as far as science goes, demon strating that the intuition of the revered
"Indo-European" scholars in the 18th and 19 th centuries was wholly unreal, that there was no need at all for the "Indo-European" language to be reconstructed. But, such as the Bible puts it: Having eyes see ye not (Mark 8/18).
The "Indo-European" is a logical conÂcept, by no means a language and as-such it has no functional worth, i.e. no com-municational value; it is an assumption, a wish nobody has yet or will ever fulfill by means of the methods linguistics uses for reconstruction.
This is the reason why we find it utterly unfortunate that there are "specialists" who ignore this elementary fact: that "there is no such thing like the "Indo-EuÂropean", that this is only a ghost invented from the need for some certainty, just a name thrown back upon some people and events 4000-5000 years old; the least we can say is that it is not wise to refer to this assumption as to some reality (also ref.to ref. 2 and other papers, both Romanian and foreign).
1.3    One should not overlook the fact that, given the way it has been treated up to now, linguistics has never been and can not possibly be a science proper, mainly because it has no law of its own, no scienÂtific means and methods that are univocal, generally valid, its matter has random developments and is impossible to order by laws, etc.[right][snapback]65900[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(a) <i>IEL:</i> are all the languages that are considered Indo-European languages actually derived from PIE? Are they all related in the same way - that is, are they all genuinely IE languages?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another example of the questionmark that people put on IEL. The following was recently posted by Honsol in the Unmasking AIT thread.
(I have yet to read the whole article, so someone please tell me if you find it doesn't belong here)
<!--QuoteBegin-Honsol+Mar 20 2007, 08:18 PM-->QUOTE(Honsol @ Mar 20 2007, 08:18 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.gandirea.ro/linguistic_history_errors.php
 There are few philologists that do not realize that linguistics is now in a deadlock. For 200 years now, since William Jones first had an inkling of and made his statements concerning the origin of SanÂ
skrit, Old Greek and Latin from a mother-tongue (1786), many a brilliant mind have tried to reconstruct this extinct source-lan guage starting from its assumed offspring.
All such effort has proved useless: this mother-tongue is as little known now as it was 200 years ago, just as if nobody had ever even attempted to look for it.
1.2     The "Getica" magazine is meant to bring to the public eye obvious facts that have resulted from researches that cannot be denied as far as science goes, demon strating that the intuition of the revered
"Indo-European" scholars in the 18th and 19 th centuries was wholly unreal, that there was no need at all for the "Indo-European" language to be reconstructed. But, such as the Bible puts it: Having eyes see ye not (Mark 8/18).
The "Indo-European" is a logical conÂcept, by no means a language and as-such it has no functional worth, i.e. no com-municational value; it is an assumption, a wish nobody has yet or will ever fulfill by means of the methods linguistics uses for reconstruction.
This is the reason why we find it utterly unfortunate that there are "specialists" who ignore this elementary fact: that "there is no such thing like the "Indo-EuÂropean", that this is only a ghost invented from the need for some certainty, just a name thrown back upon some people and events 4000-5000 years old; the least we can say is that it is not wise to refer to this assumption as to some reality (also ref.to ref. 2 and other papers, both Romanian and foreign).
1.3    One should not overlook the fact that, given the way it has been treated up to now, linguistics has never been and can not possibly be a science proper, mainly because it has no law of its own, no scienÂtific means and methods that are univocal, generally valid, its matter has random developments and is impossible to order by laws, etc.[right][snapback]65900[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->