Re[2]: [tied] Identity of the 'language of geminates'

At 5:33:06 AM on Saturday, October 18, 2008, tgpedersen
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

[...]

> You've misunderstood scientific method:

Save your lectures for someone who actually understands it
less well than you.

> when someone introduces a new idea (in casu that Snorri
> (or someone) wasn't lying)

New? Don't be ridiculous.

[...]

>>> If all the names had been somehow translated into ON,
>>> their etymology from ON would have been transparent, but
>>> for most of them, it is opaque.

>> A majority are interpretable in ON, whatever their true
>> etymologies may be.

> Exactly. Even as kennings they sound strained.

To you. But you have an agenda and a demonstrated inability
to evaluate evidence.

Brian