Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales

On Aug 12, 11:45 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No.

Any scientific law comes first of all from _observation_.

Einstein, as a boy or a teenager, imagined
himself riding on a ray of light, and this was
the origin of relativity theory - pure imagination
turning into most real physics, but still considered
Jewish nonsense by some people.

No.

Scientific laws are descriptions of regular observed phenomena.

You grow up, you look around, you make
experiences of all kinds, you are curious,
you ask questions, you are not satisfied
when teachers give you a standard answer,
you wonder a lot, and then it may happen
some day that intuition gives you an idea,
and then you must carefully protect it and
hide it, or else everybody tells you that
you have gone bunkers, and you must
develop your idea quietly, and then it may
turn into a scientific law ... But you know
nothing about this process, never having
discovered anything close to such a law,
and considering your mentality you never
will for the rest of this life and for the next
five lives,

You have now started using the word "mine" in a nonstandard way.

My English Bible says the world was created
in the year 4004 BC. Meanwhile we know
that our planet is over four billion years old,
we learned to read the layers of stone. I say
that the word treasure of our languages can
also be studied and mined for information,
much more information than PIE scholars
could ever hope to retrieve via their sound
laws. Using my four Magdalenian laws I
mined the verbal strata and postulated many
permutation groups, including comparative
forms and lateral associations, coherent groups
of words, the biggest one comprising 72 words
that hang together (a dozen permutation groups
of six words each). And my approach, however
derided in sci.lang, is productive. PIE scholars
can't agree on the etymology of English bear
German Bär Dutch beer. I was four weeks away,
looking after the beautiful flat of a friend of mine,
and returned home on Sunday, looking forward
to consulting my books again, hoping to find
an etymology of bear in Mallory and Adams
2006. But to my big surprise they leave out
this word, apparently not convinced by any
of the extant etymologies (the brown one,
the wild one, the overcomer). So I am entitled
to propose my solution.

You have not "reconstructed" anything on the basis of observed regular
phenomena. You have invented a long series of forms.

Richard Fester observed that inverse forms
have related meanings, for example in the
case of KALL and LAK, and I made the same
observation in this and many other cases.
.

Relevant Pages