No slovenian was there 5000 years ago. What was there was proto baltoslavic and proto Indo Iranic. .
If you look at this objectively the sentence you have written as absolute nionsense - but you are merely repeating step 1 of the bluff that linguists start with. That step is in saying "All languages change over time and therefore 5000 years ago there was some language and that language was proto-XYZ"
Fine so far so good.
But beyond that NOTHING is known
1. It is not known what that language was
2. it is not known at what rate that language changed
3. The It is not known where that language was spoken
Starting from these three basic truths linguists have arrived at solutions that are then accepted by all who read those solutions (including yourself) as "The truth about Languages"
For Point No1: " It is not known what that language was" Linguists simply say it was "proto-XYZ" - like "Proto Indo European". Then these linguists, their students or there followers start writing papers and articles saying "Proto Indo European was spoken in blahblahblah". Suddenly, a non existent, theoretical languages whose real exsitence is unknown and simply hypothesized has become a spoken language.
We now have a spoken language created out of nothing, and linguists go on to the next step
For Step 2: it is not known at what rate that language changed: This basically means that the rate of change of language is completely unknown despite many efforts by nonsensical glottochronology to arrive at some date. This has never prevented linguists from using some form of sleight of hand to arrive at dates. So the cooked up prot language has an approximate date. More on that below, but before that step 3:
Step 3: The It is not known where that language was spoken. When you cook up a language, give it a name and a date that goes back several thousand years the only way you can cook up geography for that language is to cooperate with Archeologists. In the 1800s geography of language was very simple. They initially said "Hey vedic sanskrit is old - therefore it originated around the Indus river". After some time they (mainly whits racists) did not like this. Someone said "What rubbish! Vedas is all about horses and India has no horses, so let's start looking for horse bones"
The found plenty of horse bones in Central Asia, but no Vedas. No textx or language in fact. So what did the do? Bingo! The looked at Griffiths translation of the Rig Veda (it is another matter that the Vedas are untranslateable, but I shall leave that subject for another time). They pick up 4 lines from the Rig veda and say "
Lookee here - they are cooking horse meat. Now who eats horse meat in India? No one. But where do they eat horse meat? In central Asia. Therefore Vedas must have come from central Asia. Need more proof? Central Asia has "kurgans" graves with buried horses and chariots. And they said that Rig Veda has a description of a burial scene" - which is utter nonsense - but I will post the rebuttal in great detail in a later post. The Rig Veda has no description of a burial scene. But that did not stop linguists from saying that Rig Veda was conjured up by horse meat eaters of central asia and they then came to Indus valley and compiled the Rig veda.
So now linguists have conjured up a language, dates and geography. Suddenly, out of nothing a language and history has been created. Such a huge bluff has never been repeated until the US attacked Iraq saying they have nukes.
Here is a brilliant quote from a linguistics professor named Jay Jasanoff
No less important than what linguistic evidence can do is what it cannot do. It cannot
provide us with fixed dates or absolute chronologies [..] The nineteenth and early twentieth-century scholars who created the myth of the "Aryans" committed every possible methodological error in leaping from Proto-Indo-European to the Proto-Indo-Europeans — the error of confusing language with "race"; of uncritically ascribing language spread to violent conquest; of attributing conquest to racial superiority; and of selectively interpreting the material evidence to locate the IE homeland where their prejudices led them to expect it. Current-day reimaginings of the past are usually more subtle. But the use of linguistic data to support prehistoric scenarios of conquest or ownership, often with an ethnic or national bias, remains surprisingly common. Linguistically literate readers should be prepared to correct for this practice when they encounter it."
This is exactly what David Anthony has done. the following are a few paragraphs from a draft book that I am writing
An example of this can be found in the book "Horse, Wheel and Language" by David Anthony. Quoting dates based purely on linguistic reconstructions Anthony dogmatically asserts that Early Proto Indo-European "was spoken between 4000 and 3500 BCE" as if the language really existed and is known to have been spoken. From this the author extrapolates the earlier assumptions to reach the conclusion that "Pre-Indo-Iranian developed from a northeastern set of dialects between 2500 and 2200 BCE." Having reached these conclusions based solely on linguistic reconstruction data with no other evidence, Anthony surprisingly puts in writing his intention to fit available facts to the conclusions he has reached. He writes "Now that the target is fixed in time, we can solve the old and bitter debate about where Proto-Indo-European was spoken." Note that by now PIE has already been made a spoken language with a well defined time period. When the answers are already decided in advance, it is difficult to imagine what else might be left to "solve"
