Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales

On Aug 16, 11:18 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 15, 9:04 pm, Harlan Messinger

<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
Apparently nobody is willing to defend the PIE
etymologies of English bear German Bär Dutch beer
(the bown one, or the wild one, or the overcomer).

This isn't a self-contained game in which the people present are
required to start from the same position. The PIE etymology is defended
already, by the people who came up with it and anyone who later
commented on it. If you want to know what the justification for it is,
do the research. The support it has received has nothing to do with the
people currently sitting in this newsgroup.

[snipping Franz's "just-so" story; Rudyard Kipling's stories were
intended as entertainment, not masqueraded as research]

No, I don't see that anyone defends one of the etymologies.

Trond already said to you: they don't need to be "defended", because
they have already been defended by better etymologists than us.

PIE just
doesn't reach deep enough,

Always deeper than your Magdalenian, because PIE is based on such
languages of which you have no idea. You have yourself confessed that
you know ***-all about Russian and Slavic languages. Your ideas would
be at least a little more plausible, if you at least took the trouble
of learning one language in every major branch of the Indo-European
family. I understand you have been elaborating your theories for about
thirty years. So, you had enough time to learn, say, Russian, Welsh,
Hindi, and Persian. There is really no excuse why you didn't learn
them, or a broadly similar set of languages.
.

Loading