9 main groups


PC, QC, It, Gm, He, Arm, Ba, Sl, Ir
PC, QC, It, Gm, He, Arm, Ba, Sl, Ind
PC, QC, It, Gm, He, Arm, Ba, Ir, Ind
PC, QC, It, Gm, He, Arm, Sl, Ir, Ind
PC, QC, It, Gm, He, Ba, Sl, Ir, Ind I
PC, QC, It, Gm, Arm, Ba, Sl, Ir, Ind
PC, QC, It, He, Arm, Ba, Sl, Ir, Ind
PC, QC, Gm, He, Arm, Ba, Sl, Ir, Ind
PC, It, Gm, He, Arm, Ba, Sl, Ir, Ind
QC, It, Gm, He, Arm, Ba, Sl, Ir, Ind

Commentaires

Enregistrer un commentaire

Posts les plus consultés de ce blog

Which Groups are not Main Ones and Why?

My Intention with This Blog · Intentions and Theorems, Continued · Which Groups are not Main Ones and Why? The rule of linguists is, for a word to be considered as Indo-European, it must exist (apart from modern loan words) in three groups of the Indo-European language ... family? ... or more. Here I am being concerned with, which words exist in "main groups" - totally ad hoc for this project. Hittite and Tokharian have been better explored since Pokorny.* Or so I thought when doing the classification. There is another reason thugh : they are incompletely known and will remain so. The same is much more so the case for Venetic, Lydian, (ancient) Ligurian** (on which one is not even sure if it is Indo-European like Luwian or Pre-Indo-European like Basque) and the Sikel language. Albanian was indeed known, but the history of the language is so recent, and its antique connections so diffuse (Illyrian or Thracian?), but above all, it is in the middle of a Sprachbund, so ...
Lire la suite

Intentions and Theorems, Continued

My Intention with This Blog · Intentions and Theorems, Continued · Which Groups are not Main Ones and Why? Suppose we find lots of "adjacent" groups (like Celtic Germanic, Celtic Italic, Germanic Italic, Germanic (Illyric) Greek, Italic (Illyric) Greek) preserving a word not preserved at "opposite end" of the geographical spread of Indo-European language group. Couldn't this be just the chance that adjacency tends to help adjacent groups to help each other to keep a word? Well, adjacency would help them to keep the word, but lack of it would not doom the word at the opposite end of the geographical spread. So, the Sprachbund theorem (by Trubetskoy, for those who do not know the founder of Balkan linguistics) would get a boost if "adjacent" plus "previously adjacent" groups were very prevalent in the preservation of words. And the proto-language or PIE theorem (by lots, from Bopp and Grimm to Pokorny, whose lexicon I am using) would e...
Lire la suite

My Intention with This Blog

My Intention with This Blog · Intentions and Theorems, Continued · Which Groups are not Main Ones and Why? I intend, in the first place, to go through Pokorny, "word" after "word" (or word-root after word-root). Each one is classified into an appropriate slot on whether it has for instance 5 main groups, like : Q-Celtic, P-Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Indic, or rather 3 of them, like: Germanic, Greek, Indic. All words fitting the one description will go to the one post, all fitting another one will go to another post, and all of these posts will be linked to from lists of 3 group combinations, 5 group combinations and so on. If the PIE thesis is true, it does not necessarily mean that words with all ten groups will be more frequent than words with just three groups, it could be a long time since the PIE era deleted most words from more than 7 groups, but the 3 group words would be fairly equally distributed along the 120 possible combinations of 3 groups and the...
Lire la suite