Hi.
I said:
>> Anyway, I'm almost convinced that there
were
>> laryngeals, or something else in their place. It's
>>
just doxa, opinion, far away from epistéme, true
>>
knowledge...
and then Glen:
> Theory can't possibly be expected to ever
qualify
> as "true knowledge" in the sense you use. Does that
>
disqualify theory? No, of course not.
>
> In the absence of
absolute knowledge, there is still
> relative knowledge. That's as good as
we will ever
> do but is far better than willy-nilly, mind you.
to what I answer:
Maybe I should had been more clear about that. I meant
that I am not confident to say that _what I understand of PIE theory_ is
true knowledge in the most possible true way, but that it is just what I grasped
of it, with some errors here and there. I didn't say that the PIE
theory isn't 'true knowledge', so I can't see the reason for your
answer in what I said, but in what you managed to find in
it.
Fair enough, anyway, because I agree with you, without
never saying the contrary. I think it's the border of
off-topic, that I don't myself intend to cross. If it's about
epistemology, you know my e-mail. Anyway, for anything I say, please
suppose the less polemic or... belligerant meaning, because I'm not
too fond of it.
Edgard.