To you it might, but to any linguist this is as ridiculous of a title as saying "English people originated in Africa". You will imediatelly think "wait, but the actual ethnogenesis happened nowhere close to Africa, so why would one say 'English people'? it's not useful to reference it".
It's the same with this title. It's as useful as saying that Farsi originated in Turkey. Or any language descended from PIE, for that matter.
Not even the separation into IE families like Germanic, Balto-Slavic, etc. happened at that time. Not even Anatolian had separated from IE. Yet the title references the ''English'' language.
>Obviously other languages originated there
No, the thing is, they didn't. Nor did English.
What originated there is an ancestor of a group of languages.
To you it might, but to any linguist this is as ridiculous of a title as saying "English people originated in Africa". You will imediatelly think "wait, but the actual ethnogenesis happened nowhere close to Africa, so why would one say 'English people'? it's not useful to reference it".
It's the same with this title. It's as useful as saying that Farsi originated in Turkey. Or any language descended from PIE, for that matter.
Not even the separation into IE families like Germanic, Balto-Slavic, etc. happened at that time. Not even Anatolian had separated from IE. Yet the title references the ''English'' language.
>Obviously other languages originated there
No, the thing is, they didn't. Nor did English.
What originated there is an ancestor of a group of languages.