Indoeuropean Language , From Historical View

«INDOEUROPEAN LANGUAGE». INTRODUCTION «A theory is not an axiom, as we say in mathematics. A theory is something that requires proof. Since there is no proof, even if a theory is accepted by 90% of linguists, it remains a theory, the most robust theory perhaps, but not a fact». STARTING WITH TWO QUESTIONS and who is THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD . A) How can somebody explain the ignificant chronological GAP between the emergence of different European languages, all theoretically stemming from a common ancestor in the so-called «Indo-European» language? In more detail: The Greek language appears on written monuments with the «Linear B» script during the Mycenaean civilization, which flourished from 2000 to 1100 BC. It was, theoretically, start spoken oraly, between 2500-3000 BC (we exclude the Minoan-Cretan language, written with «Linear A» script, because its reading has not been widely accepted by the scientific community). The second chronologically written European language, Latin, shows its first written monument in the 6th century BC and was, theoretically, start spoken oraly between 1000 and 800 BC. How do Indo-Europeanists answer this question? Why does the newer Latin language not derive directly from the much older (and related) Greek, and why does the French language not derive from Latin, but instead, they must make a leap of logic and chronology and derive directly from some unknown, until today, «Indo-European» language? The other European languages were created in the first years after Christ. So, they were not created at the same time. How is it possible to have the same ancient «mother» from a common «Indo-European» cradle? B) In history, which I studied for 7 years, I learned that the necessary precondition for writing the history of ancient times is the material sources– «FACTS»—the primary sources, not the modern bibliography. However, we are constantly reading, when looking for the etymology of words, that a word, for example, «Pater» in Greek and «father» in English, both have a common root in the Indo-European word «Patir.» Why should the English word «father» not derive from the 3,000-year-older Greek word «Pater» but must derive from a theoretical Indo-European? Did Englishmen and the English language existed 4,000-5,000 years ago? No! The English language is a Germanic language in structure, with French (Latin) vocabulary. The first Germanic script is a Gothic from 4th century AD!!!! So it is one of the newer European languages. So, is it possible to have contact with the so-called «Indo-European» at the same time as Greek? No, this is absurd. This is a gap of thousands of years! So, how can the older European language (Greek) have a common father and mother language with a language created 2,000 years later (English, German, Slavic…)? Has any inscription ever been found in the so-called «Indo-European» language so that we can compare some common words and decide that they have common roots there? Isn’t comparative analysis the only safe science? In general, I wonder by what scientific method some scientists compare the «etymon-etymology» (root) of a Greek, Slavic, or Germanic word with another word of the non-existent, fantastic (Indo-European) language? This is a language that exists theoretically and is not documented with material elements. As far as I know, there is absolutely no tangible evidence of the existence of the «Indo-European» language. So the question that remains is: How some scientists compare words and conclude the common root from, or with something non-existent. (Between Greek and Latin, or German… it’s easy to compare words, grammar, and structure. But between Greek and not proven that ever existed «Indo-European»?). &&&&&&&& THE “COMPARATIVE METHOD” FOR MORE DOWNLOAD ( free)