Creationism and Linguistics

Creationism and Linguistics · Previous Continued (on Quora, btw)

Q

Linguistically speaking, is there such thing as the "oldest language"?
https://www.quora.com/Linguistically-speaking-is-there-such-thing-as-the-oldest-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.

Answered 49m ago

Historically speaking, there can certainly be an oldest language, it is the language which existed before any other did, as used among men.

Linguistically, that cannot be detected.

Theologically, I would identify Hebrew with that language, but on what level of exact grammar is another matter.

For instance, it seems Biblical Hebrew in the word “Shalom” features a language change, turning an A in second syllable to an O, when long (as it is here). Therefore, the oldest Hebrew, before its writing down in the Bible, would have had “Shalam”.

It is considered that Ugaritic is an older and close relative of Biblical Hebrew, and if so, Moses may theoretically have written in Ugaritic, or close enough, but copies continuously updated spelling and even wording to reflect language changes - if this was authorised by Moses.

It is also possible that the linguists are wrong, that even Adam would have pronounced the word “Shalom”. Now, while Germanic and Baltic, and after a later lengthening of certain Germanic originally short A, also Swedish, after a monophthongisation of originally ai to aa, also English and Bavarian turn a long A to O, there is at least one language group on record with opposite change, turning long O to A, namely Slavonic.

This means, the oldest form of the word for peace could actually be Shalom and instead of Arabic and Hebrew having changed each one feature, it could be Arabic which has changed two. This cannot linguistically be excluded.

So, for the question part “linguistically speaking”, there is no either proving or excluding Hebrew from being the first language.

One can definitely exclude French from being the first language even linguistically, since too many words are reduced forms of words in Latin for the changes to have gone the other way round : with a Latin word, you can know what it would be in French, exactly (when you are surprised, it is through dialectal forms, loans from Italian or Spanish, or derived forms, like soleil, not from solem, but from - presumably - its diminutive soliculum).

But with a French word, you can sometimes get a whole palette of possible origins in Latin. This means, we can linguistically know French is derived from Latin, not the other way round.

However, the phrase “linguistically speaking” is a bit ambiguous.

It can also mean “according to what linguists believe”.

The answere there is threefold:

• some say the oldest language is completely lost (but has existed, one or more of them)
• Merrit Ruhlen says we have 20 words as relicts from proto-world (which need not have been the actual oldest, only the oldest in our post-proto-world batch of languages), while another man considers Homo Erectus had a language consisting of 20 phonemes, each with a very broad range of meaning, very little precision, which he tries to reconstruct by comparing meanings of words with those phonemes (he considers, for instance, M and N, P and B as equivalent, and vowels as irrelevant or now untraceable
• Christian linguists would argue the question is historical, not linguistic as such, and that theology has an overview of history. Which is, as you found, my position. I am content that linguistically one cannot exclude Hebrew from being the oldest language.

As to a more restricted scope, “the oldest indo-european language” - note, no linguist in his senses would imagine this to be, on purely linguistic grounds, simply the “oldest language” - there are two problems, one is, do all indo-european languages come from a single oldest language, or have language groups become indo-european in same way as Romanian and Bulgarian share features by having become Balkanic, the other is, supposing there was a unitary oldest language, was it at Volga delta or in Anatolia?

Either way, recently a Finn has made a reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European which is very close to Hittite (not Hattic, Hattili, but Hittite, Nesili). It is in fact so close, I suspect that it could be written down AS Hittite, with a spelling reducing some of the distinctions in pronunciation.

An older idea was it was very close to Sanskrit. Some esoterics and New Agers still cling to this, and obviously, the reason is not purely linguistic, but partly ideological - as is any answer to the question of an oldest language.

Daniel Ross

18m ago

Linguistically speaking, Hebrew is all but irrelevant to this question. Hebrew is related to Arabic, both being Semitic languages, so they go back to Proto-Semitic. But Semitic is just one branch of an even larger group, Afro-Asiatic, with its ancestor Proto-Afro-Asiatic, spoken around 15,000 years ago. Hebrew is no older than Arabic, nor other Semitic or Afro-Asiatic languages. And there is no reason to think that the Afro-Asiatic family is somehow older than others, even though indeed the linguistic evidence today is relatively clear in that case and allows us to look farther back than in most other cases: Daniel Ross' answer to How old is the Afro-Asiatic language family? But just because we cannot be certain about other hypotheses from modern linguistic evidence, that does not mean that other languages (like Proto-Indo-European) didn’t also have ancestors— in fact, we can be certain they did, even if we don’t know much about them.

Religiously speaking, there are various ways to try to explain the world. I’m not aware of any that consistently explain those linguistic facts, however. Unless you reject Linguistics along with Physics, Geology and Biology, the scientific explain should prevail here. The earth, and languages, are demonstrably older than 6,000 years (etc.).

Answered twice

divided therefore into A and B.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A

Just now

"Hebrew is related to Arabic, both being Semitic languages, so they go back to Proto-Semitic. But Semitic is just one branch of an even larger group, Afro-Asiatic, with its ancestor Proto-Afro-Asiatic, spoken around 15,000 years ago."

This scenario, I am obviously disputing.

An Afro-Asiatic language group descending, as you suggest, from a proto-language, is no more linguistically proven than the Indo-European group all descending from PIE. In both cases, adstrate phenomena, Sprachbund phenomena can play a role.

"Hebrew is no older than Arabic, nor other Semitic or Afro-Asiatic languages."

That is like saying "Greek is no older than Slavonic" - if we deal with oldest written forms, it certainly is.

"But just because we cannot be certain about other hypotheses from modern linguistic evidence, that does not mean that other languages (like Proto-Indo-European) didn’t also have ancestors— in fact, we can be certain they did, even if we don’t know much about them."

A scenario of old earth, evolution, and natural linguistics only would give that result, but that is incompatible with Christianity.

Such a scenario is to certain linguists a "proven" not insofar as they are linguists, but insofar as they engage in a scenario defined by extra-linguistic and anti-Biblical criteria for their linguistics.

"I’m not aware of any that consistently explain those linguistic facts, however."

A Proto-Afro-Asiatic from 15 000 years ago is not a linguistic fact, but a linguistic hypothesis. Precisely as with a PIE spoken either 4000 BC at Yamnaya (Volga hypothesis) or 8000 BC in Anatolia (Anatolian farmer hypothesis).

In both cases, the language groups may involve either single Sprachbund or plural Sprachbünder (with a domino effect of bringing languages closer to each other before they are recorded than they were to start with).

Plus, some languages close to where Hebrews lived, may at Babel have been left with more similarities to it, like feminines in -t for Egyptian or lots of words for Akkadian, so as to give Hebrews a better chance of communicating with neighbours.

Plus, some languages close to where Hebrews lived may have resulted from neighbours after Babel adopting Hebrew with more or less intensity as auxiliary language.

I think all of these hypotheses are linguistically at least as defensible as your proposal of a PAA 15000 BP.

“ Unless you reject Linguistics along with Physics, Geology and Biology, the scientific explain should prevail here.”

I am rejecting none of these fields as such, but I am rejecting the scientist ideology of admitting “scientific explanations” (as in non-miraculous and non-catastrofic) only.

Daniel Ross

Just now

We clearly disagree fundamentally. I now acknowledge that. I cannot imagine a productive debate when basic science is considered optional. If you don’t believe science over religion, I can’t convince you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"basic science"

In my view, it is basic science that a long A sometimes becomes an O, it is also basic science that a long O sometimes becomes an A (except it involves a certain reliance on PIE hypothesis, as involving a comparison of Slavonic to PIE and Celtic to PIE).

That a PIE language existed, rather than several coalescing ones, that a Proto-Afro-Asiatic language existed, rather than several coalescing ones may or may not be science, but it is certainly not "basic" in any sense of the word.

"If you don’t believe science over religion, I can’t convince you."

You have just admitted that to you, science is not just a method, among others, but your religion.

You have also admitted that your arguments against me do not depend on linguistic science as such, on proofs I would admit as a fellow linguist (though undergraduate), but on this religion of scientism.

Thank you for being candid.

More

added somewhat later

Daniel Ross

23m ago

I believe in evidence and analysis over faith. So that is a belief, but only a very basic one, that I hope to find the best answer given all of the available information, rather than just believing. That’s what faith is. And I’m not telling you to change your perspective.

I had decided to edit my comment to respond to a couple points above to clarify some details, so I’ll just put those quick comments here:

“Greek is no older than Slavonic” — Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. It doesn’t matter which was written first. (That’s like telling me that because we observed Mars first, but observed Pluto only much later with powerful telescopes, that somehow Pluto is younger than Mars.)

“…no more linguistically proven than the Indo-European group all descending from PIE” — Yes. And evolution is no more a theory than gravity. I don’t reject either. Even if somehow you are right and for example the Celtic languages are not really related to the others, it would be absurd to think that there is no shared ancestor of at least Greek and Latin for example. The fact that we don’t know everything doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything.

“A scenario of old earth, evolution, and natural linguistics only would give that result, but that is incompatible with Christianity.” — Indeed.

What I find confusing about your answer is that you talk about sound change as evidence for your perspective, but then reject the conclusions of sound change as applied comparatively, but only to the extent that they conflict with your pre-determined religious perspective. In other words, you consider scientific methods appropriate and useful as long as but only to the extent that you do not conflict with your assumptions based on religion. I do not share such a ‘blind faith’ perspective.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"I believe in evidence and analysis over faith."

I believe in evidence and analysis over BLIND faith (not a characteristic of fundamentalism, btw, and yes, you made the accusation lower down).

I also believe the best evidence can only be had BY faith.

You can gather physical evidence at Waterloo, but it is faith in a narrative which proves Napoleon lost that battle.

So, if you believe in modern analyses over ancient narrative, I disagree, it is not just a religious, but also simply a methodological disagreement.

"So that is a belief, but only a very basic one,"

Not really, it involves so many unstated premisses it is a very convoluted one, when analysed. And here I prefer my analysis over your narrative.

"that I hope to find the best answer given all of the available information, rather than just believing. That’s what faith is."

No. Faith means believing something because one expects the source to know better than oneself. Simple as that. When I learned Latin, I several times believed, because I expected my Latin professor to know Latin better than I.

THAT is all that faith is.

"“Greek is no older than Slavonic” — Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. It doesn’t matter which was written first."

On the view there is no linguistic difference between Latin and Italian, I presume. For the language learner and the philologist wanting to read a text, it is perhaps better to repeat "la rosa, della rosa, alla rosa, la rosa, le rose, delle rose, alle rose, le rose" than "rosa, rosae, rosae, rosam, rosa, rosa, rosae, rosarum, rosis, rosas, rosae, rosis" if you are heading for reading Dante's Divina Commedia or Vita Nuova. And inverse, if you want to read his De vulgari eloquentia and (which I don't recommend) De Monarchia.

"That’s like telling me that because we observed Mars first, but observed Pluto only much later with powerful telescopes, that somehow Pluto is younger than Mars."

Pluto and Mars are presumably not changing, like Latin to Italian.

"Yes. And evolution is no more a theory than gravity."

I am not sure Newtonian gravity is correct, though supported at least apparently by the moon landing (if genuine).

I am sure evolution of all life forms from a common ancestor is incorrect.

"Even if somehow you are right and for example the Celtic languages are not really related to the others, it would be absurd to think that there is no shared ancestor of at least Greek and Latin for example."

Greek and Latin are close enough in space during a crucial time to have lots of "Balkan features". In fact, Greek and Latin vocabulary are close partly due to loans, and very early ones, and linguists who do believe in the PIE hypothesis are actually considering Armenian, not Latin, as closest relative of Greek.

And Latin is far closer to Celtic than to Greek, except in the "Classical" vocabulary.

"The fact that we don’t know everything doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything."

What we DO know is that with naturalistic means, there are TWO options, proto-language, as for Romance, but further back, OR Sprachbund, like for Balkan group, also further back.

This could also involve several Sprachbünder.

[overlapping or successive]

"What I find confusing about your answer is that you talk about sound change as evidence for your perspective, but then reject the conclusions of sound change as applied comparatively, but only to the extent that they conflict with your pre-determined religious perspective."

Learn to read - i e other kinds or argumentational genres than your own.

I find a certain extent of sound change resulting in several mergers proof of one language being derived of another.

I am less into Afro-Asiatic linguistics, and to the best of my knowledge the extent of sound change attributed to Hebrew from Proto-Semitic (which on your view would possibly qualify as Hebrew, since you uphold identity on some level of Latin and Italian?) insufficient to prove Hebrew as being derived from an older language stage.

Note, several mergers are pretty clear indications of what direction a sound change has gone.

But in several other cases, it can be really "anyone's guess" vs "academic orthodoxy" which direction a sound change went. I concluded, tentatively, there could be insufficient evidence for Hebrew being derived.

“In other words, you consider scientific methods appropriate and useful as long as but only to the extent that you do not conflict with your assumptions based on religion.”

You presumably consider historic narrative as appropriate and useful as long as not contradicting your analyses …

“ I do not share such a ‘blind faith’ perspective.”

Dito.

Daniel Ross

1m ago

The problem re: “blind faith” is that your analysis is guided by your beliefs, rather than the other way around. The question goes like “How can evolution exist within the parameters established by the Bible?” rather than “Do Darwin’s observations and the centuries of research that follow lead us to conclude that the Bible was basically correct about how the world works?”

You are trying to find ways to poke holes in scientific analyses guided by your pre-existing objections. “Given religion, what else does science explain?” or “How can we change this scientific theory so that it does not conflict with my existing beliefs?” That’s what I meant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Which belief comes first is actually less important than which is better supported.

The formulation you propose is : “Do Darwin’s observations and the centuries of research that follow lead us to conclude that the Bible was basically correct about how the world works?”

This is as much suggesting that Bible is insecure as the other one is suggesting modern research as published and synthesised by evolutionists is insecure.

The real test is, who of us can take in most attested or otherwise indisputable facts and who is forced to explain away.

ANYONE will certainly change a theory that conflicts with what he believes in, like Evolutionist linguists are tampering with the not only theory but historical narrative of Babel.

The real question is, who is really most reasonable in doing so.

You seem to be taking the question away from a linguistic debate, to a meta debate which you think you know how it goes and think you have already won.

Is that because you really think on linguistics as such you have already lost?

Daniel Ross

13m ago

“Which belief comes first is actually less important than which is better supported.” No, that is incorrect. Finding the best way to support your beliefs is not the same as finding the best explanation in general.

That is a common statistical error, for example. If you have some data and run 100 statistical tests on it, then you find one to be “significant”, you cannot interpret it to show anything because you were just fishing for answers in the data and found one coincidence. Statistical tests must be determined before you collect the data to avoid that kind of bias.

In your case, the problem is that you have already decided on the answers (if not, please explain how you would become certain that God does not exist), and are trying to find ways to support your conclusion.

There is no point in doing science at all if you already ‘know’ (believe) the answers. There is a point if you want to discover the answers.

I’m sorry… I can’t keep going with this. I find your assumptions as evidence arguments to be too amusing to even really argue about them seriously.

I just keep reading some points you make as if they said “That’s like saying the earth is round!” but you want me to viscerally reject such a premise.

And now we’re down the rabbit hole of arguing about religion on the internet. Never a good idea, and I don’t think it’s ever convinced anyone of anything…
Oops.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"Finding the best way to support your beliefs is not the same as finding the best explanation in general."

But I am not finding the best way to support them, I am just finding the best way to defend them. AND the rest of what is clearly fact and not disputable hypothesis.

You are still preferring the metadiscussion of scientific methodology and attributing to me beginners errors which are ridiculous.

I would report your comment if I were into the Bunny-Bear fanatics, and I thought the judges would be impartial.

"That is a common statistical error, for example."

Statistics is a completely other matter.

[Moreoever, looking for one stat test among several to best support one's thesis is another thing than what I mentioned, one thesis being supported by most and most relevant stats tests!]

"If you have some data and run 100 statistical tests on it, then you find one to be “significant”, you cannot interpret it to show anything because you were just fishing for answers in the data and found one coincidence. Statistical tests must be determined before you collect the data to avoid that kind of bias."

I totally agree. This is also how I do when I do statistics.

Here statistics is not very relevant for any question.

Statistics can prove there is a relationship between IE langs internally and a (usually) looser one between them and Fenno-Ugrian. They cannot determine which explanation of closeness is the better one.

Beyond a certain degree of closeness, common proto-lang is not guaranteed. See Balkan.

"In your case, the problem is that you have already decided on the answers (if not, please explain how you would become certain that God does not exist), and are trying to find ways to support your conclusion."

I am very much NOT engaging in any doubt of Christianity when I do linguistics any more than you are engaging in any doubt of your scepticism when you do it.

This illustrates, when a scientist or scholar, whatever type or degree searches for the "best explanations" his criterion of "best" is determined by criteria of his belief, outside the specific field of study.

If you want to play fair, how would YOU become certain the earth was young and there had been a carbon rise leading to older carbon dates being inflated?

"There is no point in doing science at all if you already ‘know’ (believe) the answers. There is a point if you want to discover the answers."

Oh, definitely. But the question on whether a date like 15000 years ago existed is NOT a linguistic answer. You are discovering linguistic answers compatible with your belief that date existed and man was already rather old back then, I am discovering linguistic answers compatible with Christianity.

But in linguistics and in carbon dating, from this belief guided search criterium, I am actually not knowing the answers in advance, I am actually discovering answers. Probably more then you, because you are no pioneer.

"I find your assumptions as evidence arguments to be too amusing to even really argue about them seriously."

You are treating your own assumption that IE depends on PIE proto-language as evidence of how long ago this non-attested language was spoken.

"I just keep reading some points you make as if they said “That’s like saying the earth is round!” but you want me to viscerally reject such a premise."

No, I want you NOT to viscerally affirm such a comparison.

Earth being round can be tested around it and in the present. It can be virtually tested by communicating with people in diverse time zones per internet.

Earth being 4.5 billion years old cannot be so tested. Its "test" depends on several unknowns where your set of scientists have been precisely taking their assumptions as evidence.

"And now we’re down the rabbit hole of arguing about religion on the internet. Never a good idea, and I don’t think it’s ever convinced anyone of anything…"

I am as fit for such rabbit holes as Tim in Famous Five!

I hope this debate can reach some hitherto undecided or who had decided for your point of view until they caught your arguing for it, and convince THEM if not you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

B

Just now

“The earth, and languages, are demonstrably older than 6,000 years (etc.).”

Oh, by the way, holding with LXX chronology, I obviously am agreeing earth is about 1200 to 1500 years older than that.

But I sense that is not the exact time scope you meant …

Also, LXX chronology is relevant for diverse languages not so much at 5199 BC, creation, as 2551 BC, end of Babel.

[Considering St Jerome as LXX without second Cainan, posing on that ground birth of Peleg at 401 after Flood, and beginning and end of Babel event 5 and 45 years after birth of Peleg - though this is from a tradition which could be an error attached to the other post-Flood chronology.]

More

added somewhat later

Daniel Ross

17m ago

I simply do not see how those things can be relevant to a linguistic perspective on the age of languages. They would be relevant to an answer about what (some) Christians believe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Well, I don’t see how believing in 15 000 years ago as an existing date is relevant to a linguistic perspective on the age of languages. They would be relevant to an answer on what some Evolutionists believe.

However, in your case, you have Evolutionist ideology disguised as Linguistic “facts”.

Daniel Ross

2m ago

Let’s say I told you I have a book that says human languages were a gift from Martians. Let’s say I believed that book. Would that be a valid answer to this question?

The problem is that your book is not objectively different from such a book. It is just a book that says things. You believe it. Others don’t. I’m not saying your book is less important than the one I made up above. But it has no inherent, objective truth, except to those who already believe it. (Even if you’re right.)

As for the oldness of languages, how can the oldness of humans, the earth, etc., not be relevant to that question?

You can interpret the word “linguistically” in the question loosely (as in “related to languages”), but I’m suggesting it is as in “In the study of Linguistics”, where religion is not relevant.

Here are the basic facts:

We can easily find linguistic relationships that are 6,000 years old. We can also find some relationships that are at least a little older than that. It doesn’t need to be 15,000. Let’s say 8,000. Or just 6,001.

A scientist observes data and tries to find the best explanation.

A believer tries to line up data to meet those beliefs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“A scientist observes data and tries to find the best explanation.A believer tries to line up data to meet those beliefs.”

Every scientist is a believer, and considers certain explanations best in view of his beliefs.

"Let’s say I told you I have a book that says human languages were a gift from Martians. Let’s say I believed that book. Would that be a valid answer to this question?"

What book would you have it from? A sci fi novel?

"The problem is that your book is not objectively different from such a book."

Wrong, it is a narrative which has traditionally been taken as historic, which yours has not.

"You believe it. Others don’t."

Well, this precisely proves it has traditionally, by one of the traditions, been taken as historic. Since a sci fi novel is a novel, no one is believing it, or next to no one, and it is not a traditional narrative which could go back to the facts.

"But it has no inherent, objective truth, except to those who already believe it. (Even if you’re right.)"

False. Genesis is not a novel, even if most of it is a family saga.

This being so, if you suppose it originated as a novel, you have to account for it having somehow been mistaken for fact later on.

We are two thousand years after Lucan wrote "a true history" and I still don't see people taking that early sci fi novel for fact.

"As for the oldness of languages, how can the oldness of humans, the earth, etc., not be relevant to that question?"

The problem is not irrelevance. The problem is that the available answers depend on factors other than linguistics, so either answer depends on extra-linguistic factors.

"You can interpret the word “linguistically” in the question loosely (as in “related to languages”), but I’m suggesting it is as in “In the study of Linguistics”, where religion is not relevant."

That depends on what you term "study of linguistics". If anything before Bopp and Grimm and anything outside your circle shunning creationists is taken as "outside linguistics" you are obviously right by definition.

But if by study of linguistics you mean a rational study of languages, you are wrong.

"Here are the basic facts:"

No, far reaching conclusions, involving extra-linguistic factoids I reject on extra-linguistic grounds.

"We can easily find linguistic relationships that are 6,000 years old."

Meaning, no surprise here, relationship of IE language community.

How do you prove the relationship is 6000 years old? Do you have a corpus of text in strict PIE, continuously making equivalents of Anglo-Saxon chronicle from 6000 years ago to this day? No, you don't.

What you DO have is:

• a real series of similarities between in each case several, usually not all languages belonging to the group
• these similarities being both disguised and affirmed by sound correspondences with some but not total regularity
  
  And these two facts I do not dispute, note this well.
  
  
• A hypothesis the reason for their similarity is in proto-language (like Latin for Romance) rather than in Sprachbund (like Balkan area for Balkanic languages).
  
  This hypothesis I do not share, and the founder of Balkan linguistics as cited by my Professor in Greek did also not share it.
  
  
• A diversity of IE languages as far back as 2000 - 1500 BC (Hittite and Mycenean Greek)
  
  This, again, I do not dispute. I do however dispute exact dates, and think carbon dated 2000 BC is even younger than 1700 BC - based in identifying Joseph in Egypt with Imhotep and comparing Biblical date for Joseph with carbon date for Djoser, Imhotep's Pharao.
  
  
• An analysis of this diversity according to the question how far back before Mycenan Greek and Hittite the hypothetic proto-language must have been (say, even without added archaeological evidence, at least 3000 BC, I suppose, from looking at language change in oberved and written languages, if the date for Hittite were correct).
  
  This, once again, I do dispute. It is rather a question of how far back Iavanites and Ludites were speaking very different things and how quickly they coalesced incompletely around common vocabulary and grammatic features.
  
  Greece has been either in or just outside Hittite Empire. Coalescing linguistic features by adstrate or superstrate not at all to be excluded.
  
  [It's not binary, parts of Greek could have been in, parts of Greece outside it.]
  
  
• An analysis of common vocabulary in IE leading to hypothesis on where homeland would have been.
  
  A rather flimsy approach, I'd say. Lacks of certain vocabulary features could also be from lack of proto-language in the first place.
  
  
• A carbon dating of the Kurgan culture.
  
  And I obviously think a 6000 BP carbon date is inflated, we are dealing with a post-Babel era in which carbon 14 level was lower.
  
  
• An identification of Kurgan culture (and its wrong carbon date) with the culture speaking the vocabulary of hypothetic proto-language.
  
  Now we are way beyond "basic fact" and into the clearly tenuous.
  
  Others have, on the contrary, an even older date, based on identifying IE spread with spread of Anatolian farming. Apart from carbon date being even more wrong, I find this hypothesis better and also better fits my requirement of Sprachbund.
  
  And similar things could be said of Proto-Semitic.

"We can also find some relationships that are at least a little older than that."

Er, supposing you mean older than PIE, that would be sth like Nostratic, "common ancestor" also to Fenno-Ugrian.

The alternative, we are dealing with a dilution of the Balkan effect - takes less time, right? Just takes being a little more peripheral, right?

And I suppose you could say similar things on Afro-Asiatic.

Daniel Ross

13m ago

“Every scientist is a believer, and considers certain explanations best in view of his beliefs.” No. That does not describe a good scientist.

“The alternative, we are dealing with a dilution of the Balkan effect - takes less time, right? Just takes being a little more peripheral, right?” No. Contact and shared origins look different. It’s the job of a (historical) linguist to figure out which applies in a given scenario. It can sometimes be difficult, especially with an extreme time depth (well beyond 6,000 years ago). But it’s not just ‘six of one, half a dozen of the other’. The only reason you say that is because you think you already know the answer and are looking to linguistics as a way to verify your assumptions rather than explore the data for possibilities.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“That does not describe a good scientist”

Name one good scientist it doesn’t describe, I’ll probably prove your assessment of him wrong.

“No. Contact and shared origins look different.”

The Balkan languages of IE family share features according to your hypothesis of both types.

The different look could be from different duration of a feature spreading by contact.

“The only reason you say that is because you think you already know the answer and are looking to linguistics as a way to verify your assumptions rather than explore the data for possibilities.”

Dito, you are using IE protolang as a stick to beat the Bible with, rather than looking for possibilities.