Abstract
One of the techniques used by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov to trace the path of dispersion of the Indo-european dialects is to arrange the morphological data in chronological layers. A number of important if somewhat controversial conclusions are drawn from this stratification. Each of these assumptions: the homeland in Anatolia, the early binary division of dialects, and the elaborate pattern of migration, present some difficulty. This paper examines the assumptions in some detail, along with the supporting morphological evidence, and reaches a more traditional conclusion, proposing a more northerly homeland, late contact in the east and in the west, and more direct path of migration
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
