Re: Schöffe I

From: bmscotttg
Message: 67409
Date: 2011-04-27

--- In, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In, "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@>
> wrote:


> I am reconstructing backwards from the dual dialect division in
> Germany. That is the explicandum. Why does the Northern and
> Southern half of Germany speak dialects so different that they
> might have been separate states, and yet history says they never
> were, and why is the Southern dialect the upper dialect in the
> North yet there was no historical nor prehistorical conquest from
> the South?

That's a modern phenomenon.


>> Places such as Rottweil and Augsburg were Roman urbes
>> (Augsburg was a municipium, and its name Augusta Vindelicorum
>> shows the area was or had been inhabited by the Celts called
>> Vindelici, it wasn't called Augusta Bastarniorum or Charudesiorum
>> :))

> No, wrong.

Exactly what part of it are you saying is wrong?


>> First of all, verify all _other possibilities_ the SPQR
>> empire _had_ in order to procure slaves of Germanic extraction!
>> And only when you scientifically can prove Rome had no other
>> sources...

> We have a difference of method here. I see it as being up to my
> various opponents to point out alternative scenarios.

Because you don't understand scholarship. You're the one proposing
the alternative scenario, so the burden of argument is on you.


> I don't assert stuff, I propose it.

So you keep saying. You may even believe it. It doesn't look like
it to me (or, apparently, to George). Give it a few months, and
today's 'proposal' will become the dogma on which you build the
next chapter of your novel.


>> Remember what Brian told you: it isn't enough to garner heaps
>> of data.

> Brian finds it difficult to entertain more than one idea at the
> same time.

Not in the least. I'm just fed up with your pretense that your
mud-pies are really scholarly cake. If you can't put the ingredients
together properly and present the result in a coherent form, you're
wasting everyone's time. Frankly, I don't think that you can: I
see no evidence that you recognize what constitutes a genuine
argument, let alone that you know how to present one. Like Sean
and his magic reconstructions, you have knowledge far in excess
of your understanding.