Re: CHAT: Glottalized consonants

> Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 13:57:52 -0400
> From: Brian Betty <bbetty@...>
> Well, not to be picky, but Anatolian branched off 'before' PIE. Anatolian
> languages show a number of features which make Indo-Europeanists classify
> PIE as 'after Anatolian broke off.' Maybe that's splitting hairs, but then
> again a lot of important features of PIE languages aren't shared with
> Anatolian. They call that 'Anatolian plus PIE' common Indo-European when
> that distinction is made. Not everyone agrees, but then again I think they
> are wrong. (8-0)
I think you're in a minority with this usage --- Proto-IE roots (the
ones with lots of laryngeals) are cited as precursors of Hittite as
well as the other IE languages. Also, it's normal to say that "Hittite
is Indo-European". When trying to be precise, some people on the IE
list do contrast Indo-Anatolian (your common IE) with Indo-European
(but not PIE, which antedates both).

> but clearly Anatolian and PIE show significantly different verbal
> systems
Noone knows the verbal system of PIE. But yes, the tense/aspect system
in Anatolian is very different from those of Sanskrit and Greek. More
like Germanic, in fact. But then Sanskrit and Greek aren't actually as
similar as people wanted them to be earlier --- same morphology to an
extent, but different semantics --- so perhaps the whole thing was in
flux when IE broke up.

Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@...> (Humour NOT marked)