Re: Indigestion Number 640

--- In cybalist@..., "Christopher Gwinn" <sonno3@...> wrote:

>
> > 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.

Holger Pedersen seems to think otherwise. That must be between you
and him. And my point was that Celtic was more complicated than
Germanic, not "other IE branches" at the time.

> What I dislike is the fact that you speculate wildly on
>controversial
> matters without any backing evidence whatsoever

Not so. As for the theory that Odin wandered as described by Odin, I
think I begin to have a solid case here, based, among other things,
on classical writers. For one thing, this would explain why no one
heard of the Germani before Caesar mentions them (Snorri says the
language of the invaders became the language of the conquered). How
does standard theory explain that?


- 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.

As far as I can see, that's what I'm doing. If you have any specific
complaints, let's hear them.

>
> I am more bothered by the fact that you seem to have very limited
> knowledge of IE etymology (especially the Celtic branch),

True, I have very limited knowledge of Celtic etymology and various
other branches. That's why I stay out of discussions of them.

> 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.

I am bothered by the fact that you seem to believe that it's bad
practise to come up with etymologies without "authority".

> 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.
Let's leave the ad hominems aside, OK? As I said, if there's anything
specific you want to object to, please do.

> - Chris Gwinn

Is it that Cotini thing that bothers you? Sorry to have used a gloss
I picked up in the Usenet, but I was just trying to correct my guess
that Cotini might be related to Goths in haste.
BTW I have a Bachelor's degree in linguistics from the university in
Copenhagen. Will that do?

Torsten