Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:22 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This isn't either a physics or an environmentalist or a civil
engineering newsgroup.

Lines aare snipped that are not relevant to the point under discussion.

Harlan Messinger tries to cope with me by
mutilating my arguments, and thus he can't
cope with me.

Again: I snip the lines I'm not addressing, and your arguments are intact in the posts in which you wrote them. Stop lying.

And he always escapes to
meta-levels, in the way every kook behaves.

That's really funny coming from the person who keeps waving his hands by bringing up killrating and the way his posts are snipped rather than restricting himself to addressing what was said to him.

There are also kooks on the academic side
of the fence, as you must have learned
meanwhile.

The topic of this thread is the etymology of
bear.

Exactly. And yet you keep carrying on about killrating and thread snipping. So don't bitch at *me* about resorting to "meta-levels".

Did I not contribute enough to this topic?
And did I not open new avenues of thinking
and exploring the verbal morphospace?
PIE relies on sound patterns, Magdalenian
on semantic patterns. Or is it forbidden to
look out for semantic patterns? If so, would
you care decree a dogma in your capacity
of being the pope-rabbi-mullah of sci.lang?

More hand-waving. The issue is whether your arguments have any substance. They don't. They have the character of folk etymologies, not of research.
.

Relevant Pages