Skip to main content

The Sheep and the Horses: Reconstruction versus Reality

Indo-European is the source language from which dozens of modern languages--from Hindi to Croatian to French--have descended. Scholars have been working to break down common words and syntax to reconstruct it for decades.



There has even been an attempt to create a story in what some researchers believe is our best reconstruction of Indo-European.

This is the translation:

The Sheep and the Horses

[On a hill] a sheep that ha no wool saw horses--one pulling a heavy wagon, another one a great load, and another swiftly carrying a man. The sheep said to the horses, "It hurts me seeing a man driving horses."

The horses said to the sheep: "Listen, sheep! It hurts us seeing man, the master, making a warm garment for himself from the wool of a sheep when the sheep has no wool for itself."

On hearing this, the sheep fled into the plain.



This is the original (note that [w] stands for a super-scribed "w" that I cannot do on blogspot) as written by Winfred Lehrmann and Ladislav Zgusta in 1979:

Owis ekwosk[w]e

(G[w][e]rei) owis, k[w]esyo wihna ne est, ekwons espeket, oinom ghe g[w]rum woghom weghontm, oinomk[w]e megam bhorom, oinomk[w]e ghmenm oku bherontm.

Owis nu ekwobh(y)os ewewk[w]ont: Ker aghnutoi moie ekwons agontm nerm widntei.

Ekwos tu ewewk[w]ont: Kludhi, owei, ker aghnutoi nsmei widntbh(y)os: ner, potis, owiom r wihnam sebhi g[w]hermom westrom k[w]rneuti. Neghi owiom wihna esti.

Tod kekluwos owis agrom ebhuget.


J. P. Mallory, in his In Search of the Indo-Europeans, points out the philosophical dilemma in creating such stories:

The question as to what extent the reconstructions, or as some might prefer, linguistic triangulations, represent the "original" language has always been a source of debate. There have been those who would argue that the reconstructed forms are founded on reasonably substantiated linguistic observations and that a linguist, projected back into the past, could make him or herself understood among the earlier speakers of a language. Others prefer to view the reconstructions as merely convenient formulas that express the linguistic histories of the various languages in the briefest possible manner. Their realit is not a subject of concern or interest. [p. 16]


The point? Today there are two of them.

1) The minor point: some days I get tired of the propensity of the blogosphere merely to move around or comment on information without injecting something completely new.

2) The major point: go back to my post about Osama bin Laden earlier this week. Is the Osama we see and think about a reconstruction or a reality? Pretty obviously, he's a reconstruction, filtered through a variety of cultural and information lenses. If you actually got to squat in the cave and speak with him, odds are he would be significantly different than your expectations.

But policy and opinions are almost always based on reconstructions, which are then treated as realities.

The problem is, everybody reconstructs differently--especially people from different cultural and political backgrounds.

Do you believe that if I could travel back in time some 5,000 years that I could use The Sheep and the Horses to communicate with the inhabitants? If so, then you can be satisfied with what we say we think we know about bin Laden as an effective substitute for reality.

If not, you're going to have to dig a little deeper.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve, This is very true, it is not possible to defeat any enemy without knowing yourself and knowing them. Our perceptions of what makes an "enemy" are many times the enemy of actually pacifying them. You make that point very eloquently.

As an aside Mallory is an excellent scholar and I have followed his work for many years.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?