MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The mysterious Indian defence.. (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sir Willaim Jones is the man to blame for N8's confusion, up until a few months ago he was following Don's 'Middle English for morons' lecture, happy in the knowledge that he was slightly less moronic than the day before.

At some point Don mentions 'Indo-European' so N8 lazily googles it and finds Willy made a innocent observation in the 1780's that Latin, Sanskrit, and Greek looked so similar they could not be regarded as mutually exclusive.

Whoops... before you could say Wicked Willy Wonker the hunt was now on for a hypothetical language which was an earlier version of the three just mentioned. As these languages were in part found in India and part found in Europe, the language was called Indo European, and the hypothetical people who spoke it were called Indo Europeans. These mysterious people must have lived somewhere so the search was also on for the Indo European homeland.....

This must be all fact as Mick Harper believes it and we have a diagram.... http://www.tutorpal.com/Our_English/images/ltree.jpg
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N8 is convinced, by all this, there have been mopre reported sightings of the Indo-European homeland than the Loch Ness Monster http://www.wyrdology.com/cryptozoology/nessie.html and the Abominable Snowman combined http://www.abominablesnowman.co.uk/

Besides which this is a cornerstone of linguistics and much more importantly it is the only point of agreement between Mick and Don in a tiresome 33 pages of Flying Chaucers.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But Mick's thesis argues against the existence of Indo-European and our fundamental position is that its supposition violates A.E. principles.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Nemo: your anti-Aryan strictures do you great credit but perhaps you couild flesh out your objections? My own position (before your onslaught of course) is that the Celtic languages can safely be removed from the Indo-European family but I take the rest (unbelievably) on trust.


Maybe I misunderstood.....
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Nevertheless I will accept your overall case that there is some evidence that in the period 12-14th centuries English had rather more case and gender inflexions than it does today (and as you know it certainly has quite a few now). Since many Indo-European languages have large amounts of case and gender endings, we can be certain that English must have originally had them also. As English has shed the vast majority of them, and your evidence is correct, we now have a snapshot of some of the last of them going.


Hmmm.....
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Can someone clarify?
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Languages within the Indo-European family are related... but that does not necessitate the existence of a now extinct proto-Indo-European ancestral language.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hmmm....Well I would welcome some clarity...What is the relationship?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick is stuck with the scholastic terminology. He is referring to a group of languages united under that banner by academia.

He does not accept the existence (indeed -- we don't permit the speculation) of an ancestral "Indo-European Language".
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

...unless there is evidence to the contrary. Surely there is evidence that certain languages are related and that therefore 'language families' exist? Since these families presumably arose from one language then we certainly support the existence of such ancestral languages; however we do not (the way linguists do it) support trying to re-create them, because there is no way of checking whether the results are valid other than by peer review.

This is quite irrespectrive of the fact that the dunderheads don't even know what they are trying to re-create or the time-scale on which they are working because of paradigm errors. Whether Indo-European is itself one of those paradigm errors remains to be seen.

The basic problem is that linguists just won't employ statistics properly. They just like messing about solving crossword-type puzzles..."if plough is cognate to fluff then the Aryans must have arrived after the invention of agriculture but before sheep."
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It still remains a mysterious defence, even in its weaker form.... Dont get it... why not just say all languages are equally old unless proven otherwise. Clearly IE theory just moves the problem "backwards" not solves it.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group