4 ms·

It is very old and branched off from the rest earlier than all the other recognized ones. Some say it is not even Indo-European. But that is a distinction wit

It is very old and branched off from the rest earlier than all the other recognized ones. Some say it is not even Indo-European. But that is a distinction without a difference, all sides seem to agree that Indo-European, including, Hittite, and Indo-European without it are both good "clades". So there is no disagreement about past linguistic events; the only disagreement is the judgement call about what to name things.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
Being very old makes it closer to Proto-Indo-European than any other known language. Proto-Indo-European is, obviously, older than Hittite.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  True, age makes it closer to the common ancestor. Although as I said, it's a matter of taste whether to call that ancester PIE, or to reserve that name for some more recent language. But if it branched off earlier, and developed on its own for longer, then we expect it to have diverged more than other languages that existed around the tail end of its existence. So I think what linguists are saying is that ancient Greek, Persian, Sanskrit etc. are all more similar to each other than any of them is to Hittite. And the same goes for the reconstructions we can do for other Indo-European sub-families.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  True, age makes it closer to the common ancestor. Although as I said, it's a matter of taste whether to call that ancester PIE, or to reserve that name for some more recent language. But if it branched off earlier, and developed on its own for longer, then we expect it to have diverged more than other languages that existed around the tail end of its existence. So I think what linguists are saying is that ancient Greek, Persian, Sanskrit etc. are all more similar to each other than any of them is to Hittite. And the same goes for the reconstructions we can do for other Indo-European sub-families.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

Being very old makes it closer to Proto-Indo-European than any other known language. Proto-Indo-European is, obviously, older than Hittite.

adrianratnapala 10y ago
True, age makes it closer to the common ancestor. Although as I said, it's a matter of taste whether to call that ancester PIE, or to reserve that name for some more recent language. But if it branched off earlier, and developed on its own for longer, then we expect it to have diverged more than other languages that existed around the tail end of its existence. So I think what linguists are saying is that ancient Greek, Persian, Sanskrit etc. are all more similar to each other than any of them is to Hittite. And the same goes for the reconstructions we can do for other Indo-European sub-families.
adrianratnapala 10y ago
True, age makes it closer to the common ancestor. Although as I said, it's a matter of taste whether to call that ancester PIE, or to reserve that name for some more recent language. But if it branched off earlier, and developed on its own for longer, then we expect it to have diverged more than other languages that existed around the tail end of its existence. So I think what linguists are saying is that ancient Greek, Persian, Sanskrit etc. are all more similar to each other than any of them is to Hittite. And the same goes for the reconstructions we can do for other Indo-European sub-families.