Re: peri-IE (was: Kentum/satem)
| From: | Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, May 3, 2002, 5:43 |
|---|
At 1:09 am -0500 2/5/02, Danny Wier wrote:
It does indeed!
>Is Pelasgian a Phrygian language?
I don't thinks - as far as I remember the theory is that Pelasgian was of
direct IE descent.
I really must look out my notes.
----------------------------------------------------------------
At 8:04 am +0000 2/5/02, Andreas Johansson wrote:
>Raymond Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>Methinks, from what you say, these New Agers are confusing Robert Grave's
>>"Pelasgians" with the very different "Pelasgians" of Babaev & Georgiyev.
>>
>
>And what's Robert Grave's Pelasgian?
Not a language - in his accounts of the Greek myths & in "The White
Goddess" RG constantly refers to the 'Pelasgians' as being a pre-Greek,
matriarchal, goddess-worshipping people.
Neither RG or the "IE Pelasgianists" are troubled by archaeology.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
At 9:52 am +0100 2/5/02, Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
> --- Raymond Brown wrote:
>
>> the modern so-called 'Celtic' languages (a term coined in the 18th cent and
>> no one has yet been able to give me any evidence that they are related to
>> the language spoken by the peoples the Greeks & Romans called Celts - but
>> that's another story).
>
>What about Gaulish and Iberian?
What about them?
My understanding is that what little we know of 'Iberian' points to its
being a non-IE language. Besides the Iberian peninsular is not close to
where the 'Keltai' of the Greeks lived.
Gaulish does appear to closely related to old Brittish, but that doesn't
help over-much and merely pushes the question back about 50 years or so, I
suppose. What evidence is there that Gaulish was related to whatever the
Keltai spoke? Is there any evidence - I really would like to know - what
the Keltai and Galatai spoke and whether or not the Keltai & Galatai were
related peoples?
It's often been noted that there are some features linking the so-called
'Celtic langs' with Latin and related Italic langs. I have heard it
claimed that one reason Latin spread so quickly in Gaul was that Gallic &
Latin were so similar. Perhaps the question of the 'Celtic langs' needs
re-evluating, particularly in view of modern archaeology - see my reply to
Thomas Leigh's "Celtic".
[snip]
>> Well. there must have been. Some theorists regard "Hittite" (more properly
>> 'Nesite') and related languages like Luwian as forming a
>> "peri-Indo-European' branch, i.e. descended from a near sister of PIE.
>
>That's just a matter of terminology!
No.
According to theorists Proto-Anatolian is a sister language to Proto-IE, thus:
Proto-Indo-Anatalo-European
|
|
-------------------+-----------------
| |
| |
Proto-IE Proto-Anatolian
| | | | |
| | | | ----------+---------
| | | | | | |
the various IE Palaic Nesite Luwian
languages (Hittite)
In otherwords, they are saying that the IEoid langs of ancient Asia Minor
cannot be derived directly from same ancestral languages as the 'main
stream' IE langs because the differences are too great. They see the
Anatolian groups as being a 'sister grou' to IE rather, I guess, in the way
the Nostratists view Finno-Ugric vis-a-vis IE.
----------------------------------------------------------------
======================
XRICTOC ANECTH
======================
Reply