Re: Armenian, Sumerian, Burushaski, and Turkic languages

On Jun 15, 2:21 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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

Yet you have never given a citation, except that you think you might
have read something (no author is ever named) in a volume of that
series published over a five-year span.

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.

How can you claim you're not lazy when you refuse to open any standard
handbook of Indo-European to see how compounds are handled? Do you not
realize that the papers presented at the annual conferences are
directed to an audience that is already completely familiar with
everything in the basic handbooks, so there is no need for them to
repeat the basic knowledge that anyone opening those books is assumed
to already have?

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.

You have shown no reason for questioning what you imagine to be the
basic hypothesis ("word length") other than your own inchoate
fantasies.

.