8 ms·

Playing devil's advocate here: Given that there is not a shred of evidence that we have found so far that supports the idea of the existence of the Proto-Indo-E

Playing devil's advocate here: Given that there is not a shred of evidence that we have found so far that supports the idea of the existence of the Proto-Indo-European language, why are so many linguists (and researchers from other disciplines) continuing to invest in research with a firm belief/assumption that PIE ever existed? Is it because it would be a career ending move for a linguist to conduct research that assumes that PIE did not exist? We have seen this before in history where researchers are punished for researching topics that go against the leading voices in the field.

funnybusiness2 3y ago
My question got downvoted. I wonder whose feathers I ruffled.
- jeltz 3y ago
  People who do not like pointless contrarianism like your comment.
ashleney 3y ago
What is your proposed theory? It is understandable to be sceptical considering the scandal that was proto-altaic, however there is evidence in form of successful reconstructions of PIE languages.
- funnybusiness2 3y ago
  This brings up the topic of standard of evidence that's considered acceptable in various fields. Successful reconstruction of PIE languages is similar to mathematical derivations in theoretical physics. In physics, successful derivation of mathematical results would not be considered "evidence". Evidence is mostly limited to observed phenomenon. Linguistics as a field seems to accept reconstructions as evidence. Which is cool. But it is interesting to consider the implications of using the standard of evidence of physics as applied to Linguistics, because it would certainly weaken (not eliminate) the case for PIE. It may create space for inquiry into non-PIE-assumed theoretical work.
angiosperm 3y ago
The existence of indo-european languages is itself ironclad evidence of the existence of a proto-indo-european language. The alternative would be that each of the populations speaking an indo-european language just made up identical vocabulary independently. Details of PIE are subject to revision based on new evidence. Its existence is not in question.
- funnybusiness2 3y ago
  I think what you are saying is that the existence of indo-european languages could only reasonably be explained by them having originated from a common ancestral language. I agree with you. The open question is whether this common ancestral language is the imagined / reconstructed extinct language called Proto-Indo-European that does not currently have any supporting physical evidence (cave paintings, stone carvings, Papyrus manuscripts, tablets, and whatnot) proving its existence, or is it one of the many surviving languages still spoken today? I don't think we know the answer to that question.
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    PIE is, exactly, the name of that ancestral language. We are able to deduce many details of that language from a large amount of distributed evidence about extant languages and extinct written languages. A great many details have been elucidated from this evidence, more all the time. Sometimes new evidence leads to changes to the deduced model. It is hard to understand what you think is the difference between the ancestral language and PIE. PIE was almost certainly not a written language, so carvings or manuscripts can exist only in fantasies. We have enormous evidence of the existence of non-written languages.
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    It should be obvious that a non-written language from 8000 years ago would not be spoken today, just as much newer languages Latin and Sanskrit are long dead, as was Hebrew until artificially revived. Spoken Hebrew is evolving fast.
    - 3y ago
whatsup7123 3y ago
This is interesting. If PIE did not actually exist, what language would be the root instead? Because chronologically, there does need to be some root language that explains the patterns.

funnybusiness2 3y ago

My question got downvoted. I wonder whose feathers I ruffled.

jeltz 3y ago
People who do not like pointless contrarianism like your comment.

ashleney 3y ago

What is your proposed theory? It is understandable to be sceptical considering the scandal that was proto-altaic, however there is evidence in form of successful reconstructions of PIE languages.

funnybusiness2 3y ago
This brings up the topic of standard of evidence that's considered acceptable in various fields. Successful reconstruction of PIE languages is similar to mathematical derivations in theoretical physics. In physics, successful derivation of mathematical results would not be considered "evidence". Evidence is mostly limited to observed phenomenon. Linguistics as a field seems to accept reconstructions as evidence. Which is cool. But it is interesting to consider the implications of using the standard of evidence of physics as applied to Linguistics, because it would certainly weaken (not eliminate) the case for PIE. It may create space for inquiry into non-PIE-assumed theoretical work.

angiosperm 3y ago

The existence of indo-european languages is itself ironclad evidence of the existence of a proto-indo-european language. The alternative would be that each of the populations speaking an indo-european language just made up identical vocabulary independently. Details of PIE are subject to revision based on new evidence. Its existence is not in question.

funnybusiness2 3y ago
I think what you are saying is that the existence of indo-european languages could only reasonably be explained by them having originated from a common ancestral language. I agree with you. The open question is whether this common ancestral language is the imagined / reconstructed extinct language called Proto-Indo-European that does not currently have any supporting physical evidence (cave paintings, stone carvings, Papyrus manuscripts, tablets, and whatnot) proving its existence, or is it one of the many surviving languages still spoken today? I don't think we know the answer to that question.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  PIE is, exactly, the name of that ancestral language. We are able to deduce many details of that language from a large amount of distributed evidence about extant languages and extinct written languages. A great many details have been elucidated from this evidence, more all the time. Sometimes new evidence leads to changes to the deduced model. It is hard to understand what you think is the difference between the ancestral language and PIE. PIE was almost certainly not a written language, so carvings or manuscripts can exist only in fantasies. We have enormous evidence of the existence of non-written languages.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  It should be obvious that a non-written language from 8000 years ago would not be spoken today, just as much newer languages Latin and Sanskrit are long dead, as was Hebrew until artificially revived. Spoken Hebrew is evolving fast.
  - 3y ago

whatsup7123 3y ago

This is interesting. If PIE did not actually exist, what language would be the root instead? Because chronologically, there does need to be some root language that explains the patterns.