> You didn't like that Holger Pedersen remark, did you?
I could have cared less about your Holger Pedersen remark - it did
nothing to prove your point that Celtic languages were more
complicated than other IE branches.
What I dislike is the fact that you speculate wildly on controversial
matters without any backing evidence whatsoever - if you are going to
formulate theories and present them to us here, at least have the
common sense to do some research on your own utilizing established
and accepted source material to see if your theories have any merit.
I am more bothered by the fact that you seem to have very limited
knowledge of IE etymology (especially the Celtic branch), yet you
seem to feel that you have the authority to come up with your own
etymologies to support your own theories - not usually a good
practice.
Do us all a favor, get a hold of Pokorny's IEW and Watkins' American
Heritage Dictionary of Indo European roots (much of which is
available online at
http://www.bartleby.com/61/IEroots.html ) - these
two titles are the bare minimum that you need for dealing with IE
etymologies (you really also need separate etymological studies for
each IE different language if you want to have a comprehensive
understanding of the subject).
Prepare yourself better for discussions of IE and PIE matters, then
you will come off as so annoying to those of us that _have_
familiarized ourselves with at least the basic sources on the subject.
- Chris Gwinn