Linguistics

"Most recently, Krell (1998) argued that "the old, pliable crutch of linguistic paleontology should certainly be abandoned, at least until the theoretical uses and limitations of the Proto-Indo-European lexicon have been more precisely defined" (280).... "It is imperative, in working with the problem of Indo-European origins, that the contents of the PIE lexicon not be treated too literally. Historical linguistics has shown numerous examples of how dramatically the meaning of a given word can shift in the course of a few centuries, let alone several millennia" (279). She concludes that "the use of so-called 'linguistic paleontology' . . . has always been a popular method in the construction of Proto-Indo-European urheimat theories. It rests entirely on the supposition that the meaning of a proto-form can be reconstructed beyond a reasonable doubt, a supposition which I argue is false" (279)."

"It is disappointing to have to say that at present there seems to be no hope of estimating objectively and with a useful degree of precision how long an originally homogeneous Indo-European language would have taken to develop into derivative groups or languages which diverged as much as Greek, Sanskrit and Hittite did when the earliest texts in them were composed. Some linguists seem to think that they can make intuitive judgements about the minimum time which a particular phonetic or other change in a language would have taken. But the results of intuition when applied to estimating the minimum time in which a group of cognate languages or dialects would have differentiated to an observed extent vary so much that no useful deductions can be made from them. . . . I sympathize with archaeologists and other prehistorians who are not primarily linguists over this. Linguists are unable to provide the information which would be most useful."

"The question of identifying archaeological remains of Indo-European populations in Central Asia has been one of the main questions that has occupied a number of linguists and historians for many years [...] when written records are not available, a reconstructed time-space framework is generally used to substantiate the reconstruction with some relevant illustrative material. The linguistic attributes are mapped onto archaeological correlates: artifacts are selected, like the chariot, as well as ecofacts, like agriculture, or whole archaeological cultures (material assemblages). The archaeological correlates become some sort of labels or tags that one may employ in order to trace the supposed Indo-European populations. But, in fact, very little of the illustrative archaeological material actually exhibits specific Indo-European or Indo-Iranian traits; a question therefore arises: what is the relevance of archaeological material if any sort of assemblage present at the expected or supposed time/space spot can function as the tag of a linguistic group?"

"To be sure, neither Jones nor anyone else was wrong to perceive strong and systematic similarities among Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, and the rest. The question is what one makes of these similarities, and one steps onto a slippery slope whenever analysis moves from the descriptive to the historic plane of linguistics. In specific, reconstructing a "protolanguage" is an exercise that invites one to imagine speakers of that protolanguage, a community of such people, then a place for that community, a time in history, distinguishing characteristics, and a set of contrastive relations with other protocommunities where other protolanguages were spoken. For all of this, need it be said, there is no sound evidentiary warrant."

"Many points of controversy surround the reconstruction of PIE, and indeed surround any reconstruction effort. Some are methodological questions (for example, how do we distinguish archaisms from innovations?); some are philosophical (for example, what kinds of evidence are admissible in reconstruction?); some are simply differences of opinion based on the preconceptions and orientation of the investigator (for example, which is more archaic, Hittite or Sanskrit?)."

"[W]e know there was a Proto- Indo-European language; we do not know to what extent our reconstructions approximate it."

"In the case of Indo-European it is certain that there was no such unitary language which can be reached by means of comparison… the Indo-European that we can reach by this means was already deeply split up into a series of varying dialects."

"In summary the Indo-Europeanist’s data and method do not allow the question ‘When was PIE spoken?’ to be answered in any really meaningful or helpful way."

"What has always filled me with wonder is the assurance with which many historical linguists assign a date to their reconstructed proto-language. . . . We are told that proto-Indo- European was spoken about 6,000 years ago. What is know with a fair degree of certainty is the time between proto-Indo-Aryan and the modern Inclo-Aryan languages—something in the order of 3,000 years. But how can anyone tell that the development from proto- Indo-European to proto-Indo-Aryan took another 3,000 years? . . . Languages are known to change at different rates. There is no way of knowing how long it took to go from the presumed homogeneity of proto-Indo-European to the linguistic diversity of proto-Indo- Iranian, proto-Celtic, proto-Germanic, etc. The changes could have been rapid or slow. We simply don't know. . . .Why couldn't proto-lndo-European have been spoken about 10,500 years ago? . . . The received opinion of a date of around 6000 BP for proto-Indo- European . . . is an ingrained one. I have found this a difficult matter to get specialists to even discuss. Yet it does seem to be a house of cards."

"Egad, I think the interpreter is the hardest to be understood of the two!"

"By your own report A linguist."

"Speaks three or four languages word for word without a book."

"But, for my own part, it was Greek to me."

"O! good my lord, no Latin; I'm not such a truant since my coming, As not to know the language I have liv'd in."

"Away with him, away with him! he speaks Latin."

"This is your devoted friend, sir, the manifold linguist."

"Negates artifex sequi voces."

"C'est de l'hebreu pour moi."

"Languages are no more than the keys of Sciences. He who despises one, slights the other."

"Omnia Græce! Cum sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latine."

"Small Latin, and less Greek."

"Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiss nichts von seiner eigenen."

"Lash'd into Latin by the tingling rod."

"He Greek and Latin speaks with greater ease Than hogs eat acorns, and tame pigeons peas."

"Philologists, who chase A panting syllable through time and space Start it at home, and hunt it in the dark, To Gaul, to Greece, and into Noah's Ark."

"I love the language, that soft bastard Latin, Which melts like kisses from a female mouth."

"For though to smatter ends of Greek Or Latin be the rhetoric Of pedants counted, and vain-glorious, To smatter French is meritorious."

"A Babylonish dialect Which learned pedants much affect."

"Besides 'tis known he could speak Greek As naturally as pigs squeak; That Latin was no more difficile Than to a blackbird 'tis to whistle."

"; fruit flies like a banana."

"Glottochronology is a methodological deadlock."

"“The long dispute about the reliability of this ‘linguistic paleontology’ is not yet finished, but approaching its inevitable end - with a negative result, of course.”"

"La langue est un systéme dont toutes les parties peuvent et doivent être considérés dans leur solidarité synchronique."

"אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמיי און פֿלאָט"

"[C]haque fait linguistique fait partie d'un ensemble où tout se tient."

"It's as if we're higher apes who had a language faculty inserted."

"[C]haque langue forme un système où tout se tient."

"Linguists continue to arrogate to themselves the competence of these other disciplines. Just as experts from other sciences do not intervene in linguistics, so linguists should not tell historians, archaeologists et al what to do or how to do it just because the latter’s finds are at variance with linguistic wishes."

"Jede Sprache is ein System, dessen sämmtliche Theile organisch zusammenhängen und zusammenwirken."