> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@>[...]
> I am reconstructing backwards from the dual dialect division inThat's a modern phenomenon.
> 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?
>> Places such as Rottweil and Augsburg were Roman urbesExactly what part of it are you saying is wrong?
>> (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.
>> First of all, verify all _other possibilities_ the SPQRBecause you don't understand scholarship. You're the one proposing
>> empire _had_ in order to procure slaves of Germanic extraction!
>> And only when you scientifically can prove Rome had no other
> We have a difference of method here. I see it as being up to my
> various opponents to point out alternative scenarios.
> I don't assert stuff, I propose it.So you keep saying. You may even believe it. It doesn't look like
>> Remember what Brian told you: it isn't enough to garner heapsNot in the least. I'm just fed up with your pretense that your
>> of data.
> Brian finds it difficult to entertain more than one idea at the
> same time.