From: Rick McCallister
Message: 49706
Date: 2007-08-30
> My point of view from the start was that there is=== message truncated ===
> no known criterion to distinguish these two parts.
> >
> > ****GK: There is Caesar's opinion, an excellent
> one,
> > based on information passed on by many local
> Gauls,
> > esp. Iccius and Antebrogius of the Remi (DBG 2:3).
> > This is much more reliable than speculative
> > reinterpretations two thousand years removed.****
> > ==========================================
>
> A.F : We don't even understand what the word "Gaul"
> means.
> Obviously, both Gallia and Belgica include tribes
> that have
> definitely non-indo-european features :
> Haedu living near the Arar river
> Carnuti living near the Atura rive.
> These names with a_u scheme have a non-indo-european
> profile.
> And they just happen to be tax-exempted by the
> Romans
> because they helped Romans against the P-Celts
> Gauls.
>
> And both areas include tribes that have definitely
> p-celt features.
>
> So this dividing line is falsified by DATA !!!
> Caesar's opinion is untrustworthy.
> My method is to start from facts and data
> If Caesar is ok with facts and data, I just do not
> care.
> If Caesar is not ok with facts and data, I care even
> less.
> You are tinkering with data and fancying about with
> "borders"
> and language invasions.
> And Sorry to be especially harsh and brutal, you say
> I speculate :
> Please Remember that story about straw and beam in
> the eyes...
> ==========================
>
> > A.F :
> > I don't know who is reinterpretating
> speculatively. So far, I made
> >it clear that I deem DBG as not trustworthy.
>
> Why?
>
> A.F : it collides with obvious facts about toponyms
> and hydronyms.
> =================================
>
> > What you are describing in an "act of faith" : one
> has no reason
> >to express doubts about words (unrecorded)
> transmitted by a man,
> >Caesar, (notoriously untrustworthy enough to get
> murdered by his own
> >familly),
>
> This is why? Caesar was murdered by Brutus because
> he lied in BG?
> Please explain.
>
> >transmitted by a chain of people (we know about
> none at >99% rate).
>
> Two, actually. I think we can say we know about
> Caesar.
>
> >That kind of "act of faith" could also apply to
> Jesus, for example.
>
> True. Jesus > Mark, Luke, John, Matthew > us.
>
> >It is probably easier to list of the chain of popes
> and apostles
> >from Jesus to present-day, than to list the chain
> of people from
> >Iccius down to us.
>
> Iccius > Caaesar > us. That was not so hard.
>
> > How can we be sure that Iccius even existed?
>
> How do I know you are not a computer in a government
> basement in Paris?
>
> > We might also believe everything Herodotes wrote
> with such an "act
> > of faith".
>
> One might also believe him without it.
>
> > And Heraklês resisting Sirens' singing, tied to
> his mast.
>
> Is that Herodotus?
>
> =================
> A.F : I believe in facts above all, not alleged
> words.
> You blindly believe what people say.
> Up to you. I do not.
>
> By the way, it was Not Heraklês but Ulysses.
>
>
> ====================================
>
>
> > So far, my approach is based on historical
> phonology : I consider
> >that we have enough data kept in sufficiently
> precise state to be
> >able to make documented statements about what is
> what, what is clear,
> >what is unclear. And From this lexical and
> phonological basis, duly
> >ascribed to known (or supposed) languages, we can
> try to figure out a
> >scenario, without forgetting Occam's razor :
> undocumented languages
> >do not exist.
>
> What's an undocumented language? Do you mean PIE?
> =======================
> I mean this "belgian" stuff.
> PIE is a body of data and hypotheses that display
> coherence.
> "Belgian" does not.
> If Belgian and other Germanic invaders displays no
> data and no
> phonological and traceable features : this is the
> eight letter word
> I said I would not write anymore. or undocumented
> languages
> in a more academic verbatim.
> =====================
>
>
> > I will not move from this way of dealing with this
> Gallia /
> >Belgica dichotomy, the nature of which is to be
> determined and is not
> >to be postulated ex nihilo (or because dixit
> Caesar).
>
> Get off the horse, Napoleon. BTW ex nihilo and dixit
> Caesar are two
> different things.
>
> >Caesar's DBG is just (a bit of) data : not an
> untouchable principle
> >upon which everything has to rotate like the Earth
> around the Sun.
>
> I don't think anybody has required anything to
> rotate around BG. It's
> just data.
> ============================
> A.F :
> All Data are not be be blindly swallowed.
> This body of data appears to be untrustworthy.
> ==============================
>
>
> > As a starting point, I consider this dichotomy as
> totally
> >unproved. Otherwise, I suppose it would be easy to
> provide the
> >necessary data.
>
> Kuhn has demonstrated the northern boundary of
> Celtic placenames with
> several typical Celtic placename elements.
>
> ===================================
> A.F :
> I previously wrote that Kuhn's has demonstrated
> nothing :
> there are obvious data lacking : Condette etc
> there are obvious absurdities : Dunum don't occur in
> flat lands.
> THe word Nantu that displays this a_u scheme is most
> probably
> a non-Indo-European word, that can help us determine
> where
> non-indo-european people were inhabiting.
> It does not help determine Celtic positions.
> This nantu word has no PIE cognate and appears in
> the Alps area :
> an area with the most obvious reservoir of non
> indo-european features.
>
> You definitely have a very strange approach to data
> and the way
>