Re: Slovanik, Enamyn, and Slavic slaves

At 10:59 AM -0500 8/2/02, Peter Clark wrote:
>On Friday 02 August 2002 01:24, Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
>>  That is my impression, too. So history much be altered somehow (but
>>  wouldn't it be anyway, even by the very existence of a new language?). Now,
>>  our task is to keep the changes as minimal as possible (see Brithenig).
>         Well, in my mind it is possible to alter *our knowledge* of
>history without
>making it a *there*. For instance, the Enamyn people were (probably) tucked
>into a couple of valleys in the Crimean mountains. Who's to say that they
>weren't *here*? There are undoubtably many, many languages and cultures that
>have passed on without leaving much of a trace; likewise, there are many
>cultures that even now escape much attention. What's one more to the mix?
This is exactly my approach to Miapimoquitch. I'm not interested in
making a There to put the language in, but in adding to our
understanding of what might have been Here (the Here in this case
being what is now Utah's San Juan county before contact).

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga                  Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

Man deth swa he byth thonne he mot swa he wile.
'A man does as he is when he can do what he wants.'

- Old English Proverb