Discussion:
a tree in the forest
Add Reply
Daud Deden
2017-12-20 20:34:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.nikolateslafans.com/

Tree of language, nice illustration, but I can't vouch for accuracy.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-20 20:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
http://www.nikolateslafans.com/
Tree of language, nice illustration, but I can't vouch for accuracy.
No, that's a page asking Who was Nikola Tesla?
Daud Deden
2017-12-20 22:01:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.nikolateslafans.com/curious/this-amazing-tree-that-shows-how-languages-are-connected-will-change-the-way-you-see-our-world/
-
I copied the site not subsite link.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2017-12-20 23:36:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
http://www.nikolateslafans.com/curious/this-amazing-tree-that-shows-how-languages-are-connected-will-change-the-way-you-see-our-world/
-
I copied the site not subsite link.
Nice illustration, complete with cats and birds.
It's called "Indo-European" (oh, and I see there's a little "Uralic"
shrub over there). Seems mostly correct, though I don't think
many people would agree with a single "European" branch.
António Marques
2017-12-21 02:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
http://www.nikolateslafans.com/curious/this-amazing-tree-that-shows-how-languages-are-connected-will-change-the-way-you-see-our-world/
-
I copied the site not subsite link.
Nice illustration, complete with cats and birds.
It's called "Indo-European" (oh, and I see there's a little "Uralic"
shrub over there). Seems mostly correct, though I don't think
many people would agree with a single "European" branch.
Even for the best known and plain of the lot, viz Germanic and Romance, it
manages to be sloppy to the point of uselessness...
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-21 04:12:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
http://www.nikolateslafans.com/curious/this-amazing-tree-that-shows-how-languages-are-connected-will-change-the-way-you-see-our-world/
-
I copied the site not subsite link.
? There's nothing unusual or surprising about that, except that the graphics are
rather cluttered, obscuring the relationships a bit. It shows only IE and Uralic,
hardly "amazing" or "changing the way [we] see our world."

The same diagram has been presented hundreds of times in hundreds of topologically
equivalent ways.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2017-12-21 06:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
http://www.nikolateslafans.com/curious/this-amazing-tree-that-shows-how-languages-are-connected-will-change-the-way-you-see-our-world/
-
I copied the site not subsite link.
? There's nothing unusual or surprising about that, except that the graphics are
rather cluttered, obscuring the relationships a bit. It shows only IE and Uralic,
hardly "amazing" or "changing the way [we] see our world."
But that's how this particular Teslafan found it. I was rather touched
to find that these (to you and me) quite commonplace facts could still
inspire amazement.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The same diagram has been presented hundreds of times in hundreds of topologically
equivalent ways.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-21 12:31:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
http://www.nikolateslafans.com/curious/this-amazing-tree-that-shows-how-languages-are-connected-will-change-the-way-you-see-our-world/
-
I copied the site not subsite link.
? There's nothing unusual or surprising about that, except that the graphics are
rather cluttered, obscuring the relationships a bit. It shows only IE and Uralic,
hardly "amazing" or "changing the way [we] see our world."
But that's how this particular Teslafan found it. I was rather touched
to find that these (to you and me) quite commonplace facts could still
inspire amazement.
It reflects a deficiency in elementary education.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The same diagram has been presented hundreds of times in hundreds of topologically
equivalent ways.
Such as the endpapers of the American Heritage Dictionary.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2017-12-21 22:03:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
http://www.nikolateslafans.com/curious/this-amazing-tree-that-shows-how-languages-are-connected-will-change-the-way-you-see-our-world/
-
I copied the site not subsite link.
? There's nothing unusual or surprising about that, except that the graphics are
rather cluttered, obscuring the relationships a bit. It shows only IE and Uralic,
hardly "amazing" or "changing the way [we] see our world."
But that's how this particular Teslafan found it. I was rather touched
to find that these (to you and me) quite commonplace facts could still
inspire amazement.
It reflects a deficiency in elementary education.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The same diagram has been presented hundreds of times in hundreds of topologically
equivalent ways.
Such as the endpapers of the American Heritage Dictionary.
Sure, and even as a more or less naturalistic tree:

Loading Image...

Right back to Schleicher (though this isn't actually his):

Loading Image...

This one is amazingly early, though we wouldn't want it to fall into
the wrong hands:

https://www.princeton.edu/~graphicarts/2011/08/tree_of_language.html
Daud Deden
2018-01-30 20:37:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Words vs rules: 2 PIE trees

http://armchairprehistory.com/2018/01/30/words-and-rules-and-the-contrasting-family-trees-of-indo-european/
DKleinecke
2018-01-30 22:02:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Words vs rules: 2 PIE trees
http://armchairprehistory.com/2018/01/30/words-and-rules-and-the-contrasting-family-trees-of-indo-european/
The article seems to me as good as any of the others. There
is nothing new. An Italo-Celtic branch has been long suspected.
Even Greek-Armenian isn't surprising any more. And everything
except Tocharian makes geographic sense.

A decent research project could be based on this tree. The
first step would be reconstructing Greek + Indo-Iranian with
the help of Armenian. This (not a surprise) is what the
early 19th century PIE scholars did. Then reconstruct the
German + Balto-Slavic node which seems to be generally
neglected and thirdly bring these nodes together. I suspect
more work is needed on Italo-Celtic and suspect Tocharian
will add little to it.

So I would have 5 PIE's
PIE1: Greek + Indo-Iranian
PIE2: German + Balto-Slavic
PIE3: PIE1 + PIE2
PIE4: PIE3 + Italo-Celtic + Tocharian
PIE5: PIE4 + Anatolian
I think Arnaud would add
PIE6: PIE5 + Hurrian

I think the best name for PIE2 would be Proto-Baltic.
Daud Deden
2018-01-31 00:22:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2018/01/simpler-grammar-larger-vocabulary.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheArchaeologyNewsNetwork+(The+Archaeology+News+Network)&m=1

"Paradox explained"
Daud Deden
2018-02-01 00:41:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2018/01/simpler-grammar-larger-vocabulary.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheArchaeologyNewsNetwork+(The+Archaeology+News+Network)&m=1
"Paradox explained"
Linguistic conventions are either Easy or Hard to diffuse, depending on
how many times an agent needs to encounter a convention to learn it.
- In large groups, only linguistic conventions that are easy to learn
(e.g. words) tend to proliferate.
- Small groups (where everyone talks to everyone else) allow for more
complex conventions, like grammatical regularities, to be maintained.

Our simulations thus suggest that language (and possibly other aspects of
culture) may become simpler at the structural level as our world becomes
increasingly interconnected.

[DD: increased anonymity, decreased linguistic complexity]
Daud Deden
2018-02-01 00:44:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2018/01/simpler-grammar-larger-vocabulary.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheArchaeologyNewsNetwork+(The+Archaeology+News+Network)&m=1
"Paradox explained"
Linguistic conventions are either Easy or Hard to diffuse, depending on
how many times an agent needs to encounter a convention to learn it.
- In large groups, only linguistic conventions that are easy to learn
(e.g. words) tend to proliferate.
- Small groups (where everyone talks to everyone else) allow for more
complex conventions, like grammatical regularities, to be maintained.
Our simulations thus suggest that language (and possibly other aspects of
culture) may become simpler at the structural level as our world becomes
increasingly interconnected.
[DD: increased anonymity, decreased linguistic complexity]
Response to article at AAT forum:

It's for stuff like that, the reason why many consider the field of
Linguistics to be pseudoscience.
Cheers! george
-
I expressed comparable thoughts in my 1997 book:
small isolated languages (e.g. New-Guinea mountains, Pacific islands) tend
to have limited vocabulary & phoneme inventory, but complex grammar.
--marc
Daud Deden
2018-02-01 00:45:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2018/01/simpler-grammar-larger-vocabulary.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheArchaeologyNewsNetwork+(The+Archaeology+News+Network)&m=1
"Paradox explained"
Linguistic conventions are either Easy or Hard to diffuse, depending on
how many times an agent needs to encounter a convention to learn it.
- In large groups, only linguistic conventions that are easy to learn
(e.g. words) tend to proliferate.
- Small groups (where everyone talks to everyone else) allow for more
complex conventions, like grammatical regularities, to be maintained.
Our simulations thus suggest that language (and possibly other aspects of
culture) may become simpler at the structural level as our world becomes
increasingly interconnected.
[DD: increased anonymity, decreased linguistic complexity]
It's for stuff like that, the reason why many consider the field of
Linguistics to be pseudoscience.
Cheers! george
-
small isolated languages (e.g. New-Guinea mountains, Pacific islands) tend
to have limited vocabulary & phoneme inventory, but complex grammar.
--marc
---
Language learned in brain circuits older than humans:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180130094713.htm
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-02-01 02:01:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2018/01/simpler-grammar-larger-vocabulary.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheArchaeologyNewsNetwork+(The+Archaeology+News+Network)&m=1
"Paradox explained"
Linguistic conventions are either Easy or Hard to diffuse, depending on
how many times an agent needs to encounter a convention to learn it.
- In large groups, only linguistic conventions that are easy to learn
(e.g. words) tend to proliferate.
- Small groups (where everyone talks to everyone else) allow for more
complex conventions, like grammatical regularities, to be maintained.
Our simulations thus suggest that language (and possibly other aspects of
culture) may become simpler at the structural level as our world becomes
increasingly interconnected.
[DD: increased anonymity, decreased linguistic complexity]
Pseudo-paradox gets the pseudo-explanation it deserves.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-01-31 11:17:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Daud Deden
Words vs rules: 2 PIE trees
http://armchairprehistory.com/2018/01/30/words-and-rules-and-the-contrasting-family-trees-of-indo-european/
The article seems to me as good as any of the others. There
is nothing new. An Italo-Celtic branch has been long suspected.
Even Greek-Armenian isn't surprising any more. And everything
except Tocharian makes geographic sense.
A decent research project could be based on this tree. The
first step would be reconstructing Greek + Indo-Iranian with
the help of Armenian. This (not a surprise) is what the
early 19th century PIE scholars did. Then reconstruct the
German + Balto-Slavic node which seems to be generally
neglected and thirdly bring these nodes together. I suspect
more work is needed on Italo-Celtic and suspect Tocharian
will add little to it.
So I would have 5 PIE's
PIE1: Greek + Indo-Iranian
PIE2: German + Balto-Slavic
PIE3: PIE1 + PIE2
PIE4: PIE3 + Italo-Celtic + Tocharian
PIE5: PIE4 + Anatolian
I think Arnaud would add
PIE6: PIE5 + Hurrian
I think the best name for PIE2 would be Proto-Baltic.
A rather simple and objective way of classifying IEan languages is to sort them according to the consonantal contrasts they exhibit.
A number of languages reached a four-way system, with the addition of a fourth series based on phonotactic *C-H.
This group includes Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian and Germanic.
There is no indication any of the other subgroups took part in that innovation.
This group is the Proto-Sanskrit-Improved core, on which most Indo-Europeanistic works are based, until now.
But for the famous centum vs satem issue, Armenian and Germanic are basically an evolved form of Indo-Iranian, with rearrangements of voiced and aspirated features.
This means that Germanic has little to do with either Balto-Slavic and IMO even less with Italic. But I agree that Germanic must have been in contact with Balto-Slavic, as these two groups have a number of shared features, for example as regards case-markers.
The rest of the IEan languages did not undergo the creation of the fourth series, so they share a preserved conservative feature.
Besides, one issue is the number of contrast Pre-PIE really had. I tend to think that Pre-PIE had only two series: undistinct *t/*d vs so-called voiced aspirate *dh.
All IEan languages agree on the way *t/*d split into two series, though we cannot affirm with certainty that the contrast existed in Anatolian, word-initially, because Cuneiform is somewhat clumsy and ambiguous.
Celtic and Albanian fused the three series into only two, but in a way that is not the original two series of Pre-PIE. There's no indication Celtic, Albanian and Balto-Slavic ever had aspiration as a feature.
Only Balto-Slavic and Italic preserve traces of the three series, though in a different manner. In all cases, Italic does not behave like Celtic here, rather like Greek.

So, to summarize, there are four innovations:

1. one is the creation of a fourth series *C+H > voiceless *Ch
this characterize Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Armenian, to a lesser extent Greek. This innovation is the most recent one.

2. one is the introduction of aspiration
this innovation prepares Innovation1
It also involves Italic

3. the fusion of three series into only two (voiceless vs voiced)
It involves Celtic, Albanian, and Anatolian.
In a way, this group went back to the two series of Pre-PIE, but with the different distribution of the features voiceless vs voiced among consonants.

4. the split of voiceless into two series (possibly voiceless vs glottalized), the other series (so-called aspirated voiced) being maybe voiced or the like.
This split created the phonological matrix of PIE, with three series.
This feature is shared by Hurro-Urartian.
It can be noted that Uralic does *not* exhibit any sign of that split, and there is no doubt that Hurro-Urartian is closer to core PIE than Uralic is.

My PoV is that Nostratic had only two series.

I'm not familiar enough with Tocharian, but one issue would be to determine if Tocharian even knew a three-way series. In all cases, every feature (2 or 3) collapsed into one in that language.
DKleinecke
2018-01-31 17:44:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Daud Deden
Words vs rules: 2 PIE trees
http://armchairprehistory.com/2018/01/30/words-and-rules-and-the-contrasting-family-trees-of-indo-european/
The article seems to me as good as any of the others. There
is nothing new. An Italo-Celtic branch has been long suspected.
Even Greek-Armenian isn't surprising any more. And everything
except Tocharian makes geographic sense.
A decent research project could be based on this tree. The
first step would be reconstructing Greek + Indo-Iranian with
the help of Armenian. This (not a surprise) is what the
early 19th century PIE scholars did. Then reconstruct the
German + Balto-Slavic node which seems to be generally
neglected and thirdly bring these nodes together. I suspect
more work is needed on Italo-Celtic and suspect Tocharian
will add little to it.
So I would have 5 PIE's
PIE1: Greek + Indo-Iranian
PIE2: German + Balto-Slavic
PIE3: PIE1 + PIE2
PIE4: PIE3 + Italo-Celtic + Tocharian
PIE5: PIE4 + Anatolian
I think Arnaud would add
PIE6: PIE5 + Hurrian
I think the best name for PIE2 would be Proto-Baltic.
A rather simple and objective way of classifying IEan languages is to sort them according to the consonantal contrasts they exhibit.
A number of languages reached a four-way system, with the addition of a fourth series based on phonotactic *C-H.
This group includes Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian and Germanic.
There is no indication any of the other subgroups took part in that innovation.
This group is the Proto-Sanskrit-Improved core, on which most Indo-Europeanistic works are based, until now.
But for the famous centum vs satem issue, Armenian and Germanic are basically an evolved form of Indo-Iranian, with rearrangements of voiced and aspirated features.
This means that Germanic has little to do with either Balto-Slavic and IMO even less with Italic. But I agree that Germanic must have been in contact with Balto-Slavic, as these two groups have a number of shared features, for example as regards case-markers.
The rest of the IEan languages did not undergo the creation of the fourth series, so they share a preserved conservative feature.
Besides, one issue is the number of contrast Pre-PIE really had. I tend to think that Pre-PIE had only two series: undistinct *t/*d vs so-called voiced aspirate *dh.
All IEan languages agree on the way *t/*d split into two series, though we cannot affirm with certainty that the contrast existed in Anatolian, word-initially, because Cuneiform is somewhat clumsy and ambiguous.
Celtic and Albanian fused the three series into only two, but in a way that is not the original two series of Pre-PIE. There's no indication Celtic, Albanian and Balto-Slavic ever had aspiration as a feature.
Only Balto-Slavic and Italic preserve traces of the three series, though in a different manner. In all cases, Italic does not behave like Celtic here, rather like Greek.
1. one is the creation of a fourth series *C+H > voiceless *Ch
this characterize Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Armenian, to a lesser extent Greek. This innovation is the most recent one.
2. one is the introduction of aspiration
this innovation prepares Innovation1
It also involves Italic
3. the fusion of three series into only two (voiceless vs voiced)
It involves Celtic, Albanian, and Anatolian.
In a way, this group went back to the two series of Pre-PIE, but with the different distribution of the features voiceless vs voiced among consonants.
4. the split of voiceless into two series (possibly voiceless vs glottalized), the other series (so-called aspirated voiced) being maybe voiced or the like.
This split created the phonological matrix of PIE, with three series.
This feature is shared by Hurro-Urartian.
It can be noted that Uralic does *not* exhibit any sign of that split, and there is no doubt that Hurro-Urartian is closer to core PIE than Uralic is.
My PoV is that Nostratic had only two series.
I'm not familiar enough with Tocharian, but one issue would be to determine if Tocharian even knew a three-way series. In all cases, every feature (2 or 3) collapsed into one in that language.
I think the Germanic four-way split is sufficiently different
from the other that it should be considered a separate event
unique to Germanic. Apart from that it appears everybody agrees.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-01-31 18:51:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Daud Deden
Words vs rules: 2 PIE trees
http://armchairprehistory.com/2018/01/30/words-and-rules-and-the-contrasting-family-trees-of-indo-european/
The article seems to me as good as any of the others. There
is nothing new. An Italo-Celtic branch has been long suspected.
Even Greek-Armenian isn't surprising any more. And everything
except Tocharian makes geographic sense.
A decent research project could be based on this tree. The
first step would be reconstructing Greek + Indo-Iranian with
the help of Armenian. This (not a surprise) is what the
early 19th century PIE scholars did. Then reconstruct the
German + Balto-Slavic node which seems to be generally
neglected and thirdly bring these nodes together. I suspect
more work is needed on Italo-Celtic and suspect Tocharian
will add little to it.
So I would have 5 PIE's
PIE1: Greek + Indo-Iranian
PIE2: German + Balto-Slavic
PIE3: PIE1 + PIE2
PIE4: PIE3 + Italo-Celtic + Tocharian
PIE5: PIE4 + Anatolian
I think Arnaud would add
PIE6: PIE5 + Hurrian
I think the best name for PIE2 would be Proto-Baltic.
A rather simple and objective way of classifying IEan languages is to sort them according to the consonantal contrasts they exhibit.
A number of languages reached a four-way system, with the addition of a fourth series based on phonotactic *C-H.
This group includes Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian and Germanic.
There is no indication any of the other subgroups took part in that innovation.
This group is the Proto-Sanskrit-Improved core, on which most Indo-Europeanistic works are based, until now.
But for the famous centum vs satem issue, Armenian and Germanic are basically an evolved form of Indo-Iranian, with rearrangements of voiced and aspirated features.
This means that Germanic has little to do with either Balto-Slavic and IMO even less with Italic. But I agree that Germanic must have been in contact with Balto-Slavic, as these two groups have a number of shared features, for example as regards case-markers.
The rest of the IEan languages did not undergo the creation of the fourth series, so they share a preserved conservative feature.
Besides, one issue is the number of contrast Pre-PIE really had. I tend to think that Pre-PIE had only two series: undistinct *t/*d vs so-called voiced aspirate *dh.
All IEan languages agree on the way *t/*d split into two series, though we cannot affirm with certainty that the contrast existed in Anatolian, word-initially, because Cuneiform is somewhat clumsy and ambiguous.
Celtic and Albanian fused the three series into only two, but in a way that is not the original two series of Pre-PIE. There's no indication Celtic, Albanian and Balto-Slavic ever had aspiration as a feature.
Only Balto-Slavic and Italic preserve traces of the three series, though in a different manner. In all cases, Italic does not behave like Celtic here, rather like Greek.
1. one is the creation of a fourth series *C+H > voiceless *Ch
this characterize Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Armenian, to a lesser extent Greek. This innovation is the most recent one.
2. one is the introduction of aspiration
this innovation prepares Innovation1
It also involves Italic
3. the fusion of three series into only two (voiceless vs voiced)
It involves Celtic, Albanian, and Anatolian.
In a way, this group went back to the two series of Pre-PIE, but with the different distribution of the features voiceless vs voiced among consonants.
4. the split of voiceless into two series (possibly voiceless vs glottalized), the other series (so-called aspirated voiced) being maybe voiced or the like.
This split created the phonological matrix of PIE, with three series.
This feature is shared by Hurro-Urartian.
It can be noted that Uralic does *not* exhibit any sign of that split, and there is no doubt that Hurro-Urartian is closer to core PIE than Uralic is.
My PoV is that Nostratic had only two series.
I'm not familiar enough with Tocharian, but one issue would be to determine if Tocharian even knew a three-way series. In all cases, every feature (2 or 3) collapsed into one in that language.
I think the Germanic four-way split is sufficiently different
from the other that it should be considered a separate event
unique to Germanic. Apart from that it appears everybody agrees.
What are your reasons to think that the Germanic four-way split is "sufficiently" (?) different (?)?
On what grounds?
A.
DKleinecke
2018-01-31 19:48:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Daud Deden
Words vs rules: 2 PIE trees
http://armchairprehistory.com/2018/01/30/words-and-rules-and-the-contrasting-family-trees-of-indo-european/
The article seems to me as good as any of the others. There
is nothing new. An Italo-Celtic branch has been long suspected.
Even Greek-Armenian isn't surprising any more. And everything
except Tocharian makes geographic sense.
A decent research project could be based on this tree. The
first step would be reconstructing Greek + Indo-Iranian with
the help of Armenian. This (not a surprise) is what the
early 19th century PIE scholars did. Then reconstruct the
German + Balto-Slavic node which seems to be generally
neglected and thirdly bring these nodes together. I suspect
more work is needed on Italo-Celtic and suspect Tocharian
will add little to it.
So I would have 5 PIE's
PIE1: Greek + Indo-Iranian
PIE2: German + Balto-Slavic
PIE3: PIE1 + PIE2
PIE4: PIE3 + Italo-Celtic + Tocharian
PIE5: PIE4 + Anatolian
I think Arnaud would add
PIE6: PIE5 + Hurrian
I think the best name for PIE2 would be Proto-Baltic.
A rather simple and objective way of classifying IEan languages is to sort them according to the consonantal contrasts they exhibit.
A number of languages reached a four-way system, with the addition of a fourth series based on phonotactic *C-H.
This group includes Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian and Germanic.
There is no indication any of the other subgroups took part in that innovation.
This group is the Proto-Sanskrit-Improved core, on which most Indo-Europeanistic works are based, until now.
But for the famous centum vs satem issue, Armenian and Germanic are basically an evolved form of Indo-Iranian, with rearrangements of voiced and aspirated features.
This means that Germanic has little to do with either Balto-Slavic and IMO even less with Italic. But I agree that Germanic must have been in contact with Balto-Slavic, as these two groups have a number of shared features, for example as regards case-markers.
The rest of the IEan languages did not undergo the creation of the fourth series, so they share a preserved conservative feature.
Besides, one issue is the number of contrast Pre-PIE really had. I tend to think that Pre-PIE had only two series: undistinct *t/*d vs so-called voiced aspirate *dh.
All IEan languages agree on the way *t/*d split into two series, though we cannot affirm with certainty that the contrast existed in Anatolian, word-initially, because Cuneiform is somewhat clumsy and ambiguous.
Celtic and Albanian fused the three series into only two, but in a way that is not the original two series of Pre-PIE. There's no indication Celtic, Albanian and Balto-Slavic ever had aspiration as a feature.
Only Balto-Slavic and Italic preserve traces of the three series, though in a different manner. In all cases, Italic does not behave like Celtic here, rather like Greek.
1. one is the creation of a fourth series *C+H > voiceless *Ch
this characterize Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Armenian, to a lesser extent Greek. This innovation is the most recent one.
2. one is the introduction of aspiration
this innovation prepares Innovation1
It also involves Italic
3. the fusion of three series into only two (voiceless vs voiced)
It involves Celtic, Albanian, and Anatolian.
In a way, this group went back to the two series of Pre-PIE, but with the different distribution of the features voiceless vs voiced among consonants.
4. the split of voiceless into two series (possibly voiceless vs glottalized), the other series (so-called aspirated voiced) being maybe voiced or the like.
This split created the phonological matrix of PIE, with three series.
This feature is shared by Hurro-Urartian.
It can be noted that Uralic does *not* exhibit any sign of that split, and there is no doubt that Hurro-Urartian is closer to core PIE than Uralic is.
My PoV is that Nostratic had only two series.
I'm not familiar enough with Tocharian, but one issue would be to determine if Tocharian even knew a three-way series. In all cases, every feature (2 or 3) collapsed into one in that language.
I think the Germanic four-way split is sufficiently different
from the other that it should be considered a separate event
unique to Germanic. Apart from that it appears everybody agrees.
What are your reasons to think that the Germanic four-way split is "sufficiently" (?) different (?)?
On what grounds?
Mostly Grimm's Law. What happened is not very similar
phonologically. Subjective, of course, but that's my take.

I've never seen your idea posed before so I have no idea what
the community of historical linguists thinks of it.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-01 06:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Daud Deden
Words vs rules: 2 PIE trees
http://armchairprehistory.com/2018/01/30/words-and-rules-and-the-contrasting-family-trees-of-indo-european/
The article seems to me as good as any of the others. There
is nothing new. An Italo-Celtic branch has been long suspected.
Even Greek-Armenian isn't surprising any more. And everything
except Tocharian makes geographic sense.
A decent research project could be based on this tree. The
first step would be reconstructing Greek + Indo-Iranian with
the help of Armenian. This (not a surprise) is what the
early 19th century PIE scholars did. Then reconstruct the
German + Balto-Slavic node which seems to be generally
neglected and thirdly bring these nodes together. I suspect
more work is needed on Italo-Celtic and suspect Tocharian
will add little to it.
So I would have 5 PIE's
PIE1: Greek + Indo-Iranian
PIE2: German + Balto-Slavic
PIE3: PIE1 + PIE2
PIE4: PIE3 + Italo-Celtic + Tocharian
PIE5: PIE4 + Anatolian
I think Arnaud would add
PIE6: PIE5 + Hurrian
I think the best name for PIE2 would be Proto-Baltic.
A rather simple and objective way of classifying IEan languages is to sort them according to the consonantal contrasts they exhibit.
A number of languages reached a four-way system, with the addition of a fourth series based on phonotactic *C-H.
This group includes Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian and Germanic.
There is no indication any of the other subgroups took part in that innovation.
This group is the Proto-Sanskrit-Improved core, on which most Indo-Europeanistic works are based, until now.
But for the famous centum vs satem issue, Armenian and Germanic are basically an evolved form of Indo-Iranian, with rearrangements of voiced and aspirated features.
This means that Germanic has little to do with either Balto-Slavic and IMO even less with Italic. But I agree that Germanic must have been in contact with Balto-Slavic, as these two groups have a number of shared features, for example as regards case-markers.
The rest of the IEan languages did not undergo the creation of the fourth series, so they share a preserved conservative feature.
Besides, one issue is the number of contrast Pre-PIE really had. I tend to think that Pre-PIE had only two series: undistinct *t/*d vs so-called voiced aspirate *dh.
All IEan languages agree on the way *t/*d split into two series, though we cannot affirm with certainty that the contrast existed in Anatolian, word-initially, because Cuneiform is somewhat clumsy and ambiguous.
Celtic and Albanian fused the three series into only two, but in a way that is not the original two series of Pre-PIE. There's no indication Celtic, Albanian and Balto-Slavic ever had aspiration as a feature.
Only Balto-Slavic and Italic preserve traces of the three series, though in a different manner. In all cases, Italic does not behave like Celtic here, rather like Greek.
1. one is the creation of a fourth series *C+H > voiceless *Ch
this characterize Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Armenian, to a lesser extent Greek. This innovation is the most recent one.
2. one is the introduction of aspiration
this innovation prepares Innovation1
It also involves Italic
3. the fusion of three series into only two (voiceless vs voiced)
It involves Celtic, Albanian, and Anatolian.
In a way, this group went back to the two series of Pre-PIE, but with the different distribution of the features voiceless vs voiced among consonants.
4. the split of voiceless into two series (possibly voiceless vs glottalized), the other series (so-called aspirated voiced) being maybe voiced or the like.
This split created the phonological matrix of PIE, with three series.
This feature is shared by Hurro-Urartian.
It can be noted that Uralic does *not* exhibit any sign of that split, and there is no doubt that Hurro-Urartian is closer to core PIE than Uralic is.
My PoV is that Nostratic had only two series.
I'm not familiar enough with Tocharian, but one issue would be to determine if Tocharian even knew a three-way series. In all cases, every feature (2 or 3) collapsed into one in that language.
I think the Germanic four-way split is sufficiently different
from the other that it should be considered a separate event
unique to Germanic. Apart from that it appears everybody agrees.
What are your reasons to think that the Germanic four-way split is "sufficiently" (?) different (?)?
On what grounds?
Mostly Grimm's Law. What happened is not very similar
phonologically. Subjective, of course, but that's my take.
I've never seen your idea posed before so I have no idea what
the community of historical linguists thinks of it.
My theory is still in the making, and I have never published on it. Besides, I'm not sure the stifling peer-review would let it thru.
But basically my approach is a Nostratic phonological mold with only two series.
I have pointed to Bomhard that his Proto-Nostratic with more than 50 phonemes is unrealistic, especially when compared to all daughter-languages that usually have 15 to 25 phonemes.
My idea is that the comparative method tends to generate artefactual extra-complexity out of simpler initial states. The reasons for that are splits, conditioned changes and borrowings. So we have to remove that extra-complexity to retrieve the initial state.
Following Saussure's ideas, PIE voiceless series (C+H) has been removed.
But I'm advocating another radical removal: a Pre-PIE with only two series, where the voiceless series split into two series.
I've come to work on this idea in order to explain the gaps in the combinatory distribution of PIE roots. Some combinations are well-known to be close to non-existent.
Within the glottalic framework, this is explained as phonotactical constraints. But I don't believe in that constraint.
Personally, I explain these gaps as a scar from the Pre-PIE two series.
Originally, there were only four possible combinations C1_C2, but voice was a free variant. At some point, voice became phonemic and this froze plenty of variants with voiceless or voiced consonants.
In other words, in theory, PIE offers the possibility of 3*3 combinations, but the material inherited from Pre-PIE was originally consistent with only 2*2 combinations.
If you look at Pokornyan PIE, there are plenty of variants like der/ter or kel/gel with the same meaning. Pokorny's IEW is in fact saturated with variants.

My theory with two series has a number of consequences.
For example, Grassman Law is useless, it results from an inadequate initial state. The initial state I propose makes this "Law" nonexisting.
Another consequence is that roots with variants (voiceless+voiced) should normally be more ancient than PIE itself and be inherited from the Pre-PIE system with two series.
I've already checked this prediction against Uralic and it works.
I have an internal criterion within PIE that indicates the roots that are most probably inherited, and therefore offer the highest chances of having comparanda in other families.

Uralic is rooted in Pre-PIE with two series and is not a close relative of PIE. Some others are closer and rooted in a system with the PIE three series. Hurro-Urartian is one of them.
DKleinecke
2018-02-01 18:09:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
My theory is still in the making, and I have never published on it. Besides, I'm not sure the stifling peer-review would let it thru.
Then post it here is sci.lang. You may not get enthusiastic
assent but at least what you think will be out where the
whole world will see it. Sci.lang is much more accessible to
people than places like Academia or some obscure journal.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But basically my approach is a Nostratic phonological mold with only two series.
I have pointed to Bomhard that his Proto-Nostratic with more than 50 phonemes is unrealistic, especially when compared to all daughter-languages that usually have 15 to 25 phonemes.
My idea is that the comparative method tends to generate artefactual extra-complexity out of simpler initial states. The reasons for that are splits, conditioned changes and borrowings. So we have to remove that extra-complexity to retrieve the initial state.
Following Saussure's ideas, PIE voiceless series (C+H) has been removed.
But I'm advocating another radical removal: a Pre-PIE with only two series, where the voiceless series split into two series.
I've come to work on this idea in order to explain the gaps in the combinatory distribution of PIE roots. Some combinations are well-known to be close to non-existent.
Within the glottalic framework, this is explained as phonotactical constraints. But I don't believe in that constraint.
Personally, I explain these gaps as a scar from the Pre-PIE two series.
Originally, there were only four possible combinations C1_C2, but voice was a free variant. At some point, voice became phonemic and this froze plenty of variants with voiceless or voiced consonants.
In other words, in theory, PIE offers the possibility of 3*3 combinations, but the material inherited from Pre-PIE was originally consistent with only 2*2 combinations.
If you look at Pokornyan PIE, there are plenty of variants like der/ter or kel/gel with the same meaning. Pokorny's IEW is in fact saturated with variants.
My theory with two series has a number of consequences.
For example, Grassman Law is useless, it results from an inadequate initial state. The initial state I propose makes this "Law" nonexisting.
Another consequence is that roots with variants (voiceless+voiced) should normally be more ancient than PIE itself and be inherited from the Pre-PIE system with two series.
I've already checked this prediction against Uralic and it works.
I have an internal criterion within PIE that indicates the roots that are most probably inherited, and therefore offer the highest chances of having comparanda in other families.
Uralic is rooted in Pre-PIE with two series and is not a close relative of PIE. Some others are closer and rooted in a system with the PIE three series. Hurro-Urartian is one of them.
There are quite a number of us who think of Nostratic as
a delusion (in the sense Dawkins called religion a delusion).
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-01 23:06:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
My theory is still in the making, and I have never published on it. Besides, I'm not sure the stifling peer-review would let it thru.
Then post it here is sci.lang. You may not get enthusiastic
assent but at least what you think will be out where the
whole world will see it. Sci.lang is much more accessible to
people than places like Academia or some obscure journal.
well, anyway, I think I never explained my PoV so extensively before, as I just did in this thread.
I don't expect enthusiastic assent. Most people are bigoted retards, so I expect nothing.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-02 04:04:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I don't expect enthusiastic assent. Most people are bigoted retards, so I expect nothing.
You deserve less than nothing.

If you don't find a cure for your Tourette's, no one will give you the time of day.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-02 07:52:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I don't expect enthusiastic assent. Most people are bigoted retards, so I expect nothing.
You deserve less than nothing.
If you don't find a cure for your Tourette's, no one will give you the time of day.
yes, as I wrote, most people are bigoted retards, you're a good specimen.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-02 13:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I don't expect enthusiastic assent. Most people are bigoted retards, so I expect nothing.
You deserve less than nothing.
If you don't find a cure for your Tourette's, no one will give you the time of day.
yes, as I wrote, most people are bigoted retards, you're a good specimen.
Q.E.D.

IF "A." has ever "discovered" anything worth knowing about, he has assured that
no one will ever know.

Loading...