Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales

On Aug 21, 9:16 am, "John Atkinson" <johna...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
[...]

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.

All the folk etymologies I've come across are based on a degree of
logic -- they're factually wrong, but plausible. Claiming that FG's
arguments have the charactor of folk etymologies is an unforgivable
insult to all folk etymologicians.

J.

Well, at least his claim that the word-stem PIS means "streaming
water" does make certain folk-etymological sense, doesn't it?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales
    ... 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. ... on semantic patterns. ... They have the character of folk etymologies, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales
    ... Magdalenian ... on semantic patterns. ... They have the character of folk etymologies, ... All the folk etymologies I've come across are based on a degree of logic -- they're factually wrong, ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading