 |
 |
Lawrence: If a language--extant or presumed to have existed--is classified as "Baltic," then it's also considered Indo-European, by definition. 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 Lawrence wrote: >No, it says "and some baltic group now disappeared", which implies to me >that it *isn't one of those we know of and have therefore been able to >classify as indo-european - because we *don't know of it because it has >disappeared already > >I, too, would like to know the source. I'd like to know how one decides that >a word in a language in a set of languages from which the linguist infers >the parameters of indo european isn't indo-european... I'm not saying it >can'tbe done but it is going to be induction / deduction dangerously close >to bootstrapping. >| Meika wrote: >| >| >when, and I cannot remember where I heard this, the german languages >| >contain the most non-indo-european words in their vocab which has lead >some >| >to speculate that "german" was/is a creole of indo-europeans and some >| >baltic group now disappeared, of course this hybridity would also mean >they >| >would be like no one but themselves... >| >| Since the Balto-Slavic languages are _also_ Indo-European, this >| Germanic-Baltic "creole" theory doesn't make much sense. (I'd love to >| know its source, Meika, if you recall it.) As for "non-Indo-European >| words" to be found in Germanic vocabularies, one such vocab. (English) >| can probably claim "egg foo yong" by now. >| >| Candice