From: Tavi
Message: 68880
Date: 2012-03-09

--- In, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
> > Being reconstructible for a late PIE stage doesn't make it
> > a genuine (i.e. inherited) word in the sense I attribute
> > to this concept.
> Your private terminology doesn't interest me.
Thanks for your opinion. :-)

> > Using your own words, I don't think you're properly
> > qualified to judge that.
> Oh, I'm very well qualified to tell whether you have offered
> genuine arguments or not. I might be unqualified to judge
> real linguistic arguments if you did offer them, but that's
> another matter altogether. Most of the 'arguments' that
> you've offered are little more than statements of faith
> without any actual evidence or reasoning.
Actually, I could say the same of yours. Labels such as "pseudo-science"
or "outlandish" doesn't convey any reasoning but EMOTIONS. If you want
my opinion, I think mainstream IE theory is still valuable in despite of
its flaws.

> > I'm sorry, but I find a waste of time to continue this
> > dicussion.
> I consider virtually all of your posts a waste of time; I'm
> retired and have time to waste. Occasionally I get fed up
> and say something. I have no expectation that it will do
> any good: you've decided that all of the experts are wrong,
> that they unthinkingly reiterate dogma and never think for
> themselves (which already shows how far out of touch with
> reality you are), and that you know better, and nothing and
> no one is going to shake that conviction.
On the contrary, I'm a open-minded person who's willing to change my
point of view whenever somebody proves me wrong. For example, I formerly
thought the IE word for 'bear' was a loanword until Piotr showed me the

By contrast, you haven't refuted any of my arguments, apart from calling
me names.