Re: Scientist's etymology vs. scientific etymology

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Carl Hult <Carl.Hult@...> wrote:

>
> Well, you rush to your linguist friend's defence, as I thought
> you would.

You thought he would prefer what a linguist tells us about
these etymologies to what you or your supposedly historian
friends would rather believe?

Who would ever imagine?

> I can agree that greek could very well be the origin of germanic
> word butter but there's also the chance it could have taken the
> course via latin from another language without greek being the
> "middle man".

It could have come from Mars too, but do we have any reason
to prefer that or your Scythian source to the Greek one?

> Etymonline.com doesn't rule out the chance that the greek word is
> folk etymology of a scythian word.

What Scythian word might that be?

> Who knows,

Who knows? Well if anybody knows I would think it would be
a linguist. It's a linguistic question, is it not?

> maybe the same schythians gave the proto-germanic peoples their
> word at the same time as the greeks got their word? After all,
> etymology isn't the truth, it's only a set of theories which in
> some cases happen to fit the fact.

You see, your approach is rather self-important and annoying,
lecturing us on the nature of etymologies, truth, etc., and
stating that any given etymology might possibly be incorrect,
when nothing could be more obvious to most of us on the list,
while failing to offer anything in the way of proper argument
for your alternatives. Finally you end with an allusion to
asses, which is rather ironic, if you ask me.

Please just present whatever arguments you have, and spare us
the dramatic introduction and condescension.

David