17 ms·

if (for the sake of argument) the words dog and wolf and fox have jointly evolved in an apparent way over time, phonetically and morphologically, from proto-ind

if (for the sake of argument) the words dog and wolf and fox have jointly evolved in an apparent way over time, phonetically and morphologically, from proto-indo-european to modern descendent languages, and so have some other words like grapes and manger and cry and villagers, and these modern cultures have similar but different shared stories about dogs in mangers, foxes and grapes, and crying wolf so the villagers will come, and the differences between the stories across cultures just so happens to be in concordance with the evolution of those words, I'd say that is evidence of a shared origin for the stories. I don't think you are showing much imagination about one would investigate such an idea.

michael9423 2y ago
The study is not about shared origins. Everyone knows that many stories have shared origins. To know this, one just has to analyze the historical texts and development of certain stories during the last hundreds of years. The Babylonian confusion was common sense for the last 1000-2000 years. The study is about claiming some specific stories are definitely 6000 years old just because some shady analysis based on nothing but thin air. Historical linguistics works with non-existent languages. Making assumptions about a non-existent language is one thing, but claiming to know both the time when those languages were spoken and the stories that were told is pure hybris (Lyle Campbell and Paul Heggarty refuse to believe in so-called glossochronology). The entire field of historical linguistics is pure speculation without any hard evidence. It is impossible to know languages that do not exist anymore or have no written sources. The Australian linguist Robert Dixon rightfully said that the proponents of far-reaching linguistic affinities undercut the level of what constitutes good science “to the point of nonsense”. He explains that languages can not be reconstructed.

michael9423 2y ago

The study is not about shared origins. Everyone knows that many stories have shared origins. To know this, one just has to analyze the historical texts and development of certain stories during the last hundreds of years. The Babylonian confusion was common sense for the last 1000-2000 years. The study is about claiming some specific stories are definitely 6000 years old just because some shady analysis based on nothing but thin air. Historical linguistics works with non-existent languages. Making assumptions about a non-existent language is one thing, but claiming to know both the time when those languages were spoken and the stories that were told is pure hybris (Lyle Campbell and Paul Heggarty refuse to believe in so-called glossochronology). The entire field of historical linguistics is pure speculation without any hard evidence. It is impossible to know languages that do not exist anymore or have no written sources. The Australian linguist Robert Dixon rightfully said that the proponents of far-reaching linguistic affinities undercut the level of what constitutes good science “to the point of nonsense”. He explains that languages can not be reconstructed.