Re: PIE vestuary

At 10:58:12 AM on Friday, April 27, 2012, Tavi wrote:

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

>>> Then "Italo-Celtic" is only an illusion caused by an Italic
>>> substrate/adstrate in Celtic.

>> This is obviously utterly irrelevant.

> No, it doesn't. Many specialists (e.g. Matasovic) reject
> the existence of "Italo-Celtic" as indicating a close
> genetical relationship, and thus they attribute their
> shared isoglosses to language contact. This is exactly my
> own position.

Again, this is utterly irrelevant. Are you really too
stupid to understand that the issue has nothing to do with
the linguistic facts, your position, or even any linguist's
position, and everything to do with the established meaning
of standard terminology. Matasović rejects an Italo-Celtic
taxon, but he knows what the term 'Italo-Celtic' means and
uses the term with that meaning.