Re: Bear, a Magdalenian test case

On Sep 26, 1:20 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Peter T. Daniels: would you care consider what I say?

Not until you say something based in fact.

or is it just and always the same power game you play?
Harlan Messinger: you tell me again the favorite joke
of Sigmund Freud. I mentioned it long before you,
and several times, as illustration of the way PIE scholars
are proceeding: stretching their method, churning out
over-complicated pseudo-algebraic formulas. Also the
Nostratic and the Proto-World approach to early language
are stretchers of the same method --- everybody is looking
for the lost key in the light cone of the same lamp instead
of developing a new method and looking somewhere else.
I develop a new method, and I may say very successfully.

Yes, but what you say about your own method is not valid praise of
your own method.

You lot have nothing to put against it, apart from spouting
invectives and ad hominems and leading a killrating

We do not know what "a killrating campaign" is, nor how to "lead" one.

campaign. What you lack are scientific arguments.

It is not possible to bring a "scientific argument" against something
that is not science.

Neither can you provide more and better evidence for
bear as the brown one, nor can you disprove my etymology
of bear as the furry one, provider of the best fur, thick,
longhaired, soft and warm. And Peter is a flip-flopper,
telling me sound laws are laws no laws are laws no laws.
Claiming that PIE scholars rigorously applied their sound
laws for 175 years is of course claiming they are laws that
hold. Peter is the personification of a double bind, typical
for everybody engaged in power games.-

Stop lying about what I have said.

If you would bother to learn something, instead of inventing
everything, you would learn how philology grew between 1815 and 1877
(when the term "Lautgesetz" was invented).

No one "applies sound laws," whatever that might mean.
.

Relevant Pages