Re: Armenian, Sumerian, Burushaski, and Turkic languages

On Jun 14, 7:41 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Repeating this lie only demonstrates that you have done no actual
research and are only concerned with self-promotion of your personal
fantasies.

Stop calling me a liar! What about the publications
of the Institute for the Study of Man, Washington DC,
especially the Proceedings of the Annual UCLA Indo-
European Conference? I rely on these and further
publications, for example the festschrift Indo-European,
Nostratic, and Beyond. All the PIE reconstructions
I find take the given word lengths for granted, as units,
aqua is explained as *akwa, not as a compound.
I propose the figurative compound AC CA. If you know
of such compounds in PIE reconstructions, tell me
about them. If not, take back your invectives.

If you want to critique commonly accepted methodology, then you need
to critique it for what it actually is, not for what you imagine it to
be.

I don't critique the commonly accepted methods,
but I say that the basic assumption of given word
lengths, as in the case of aqua, equus, kyklos, and
so on, and so on, which you call a null hypothesis,
can be questioned, and now must be questioned.
Also a null hypothesis is a hypothesis. Scientific
rigor demands that it be questioned if there is
sufficient reason to do so.

Franz Gnaedinger

.

Relevant Pages