I'm not assuming your "stupidity," Lawrence--on the contrary, I'm
beginning to think that you're baiting me, since it's so unlike you
to mix lingoing up with seagoing. But here's your answer in any case:
the Baltic languages include Old Prussian, Lithuanian, and Latvian;
the Baltic Sea is (Northern European)-Atlantic inclusive.
>| Lawrence: If a language--extant or presumed to have existed--is
>| classified as "Baltic," then it's also considered Indo-European,
>| by definition.
>
>Why? An Indo-European language is Indo-European. A Baltic language where
>Baltic is inherently understood to mean the Baltic subgroup of Indo-European
>languages is Indo-European. But Baltic also refers to the Baltic Sea and the
>area around there.
>
>As for how one decides or infers that a word is or
>| isn't "Indo-European," you start with those language groups that
>| are believed to be derived from "Indo-European" (a presumed common
>| source in itself), namely, the Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Germanic,
>| Italic, and Celtic. Would you infer that "egg foo yong" belongs to
>| any of these language groups? --Candice
>
>So that's how you start? Actually it was the rest that concerned me.
The rest of what?
Actually I started with Inuit, but didn't want to risk reopening
that snowy can of words.
All the best backatcha,
Candice
|