> > 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.
Well, that's how your comments read.
> > 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?
This is exactly the type of comment that I am complaining about.
First of all, the Greeks and Romans had very little knowledge of the
geography and ethnology of Northern/Central Europe in ancient times -
the Celts themselves only begin to enter Greek consciousness around
the 6th century BC - and even then the Greeks are only aware of those
Celtic tribes that lay closest to the Mediterranean. The Greeks and
Romans had no sufficiently developed linguistic or anthropological
sciences to enable them to properly distinguish northern peoples from
one another - to the ancient Greek of c. 5th-4th c. BC it was
sufficient to consider all westernmost barbarians to be Celts, all
northernmost barbarians Scythians, all easternmorst barbarians
Indians and all southernmost barbarians Ethiopians - they need not
concern themselves with the finer distinctions between these peoples
and their immediate neighbors. It is only when the Greeks and Romans
are put into direct contact with these foreign people - usually
through wars - that some semblance of genuine ethnological data is
collected by classical authors.
The simple fact is that due to an accident of history (mainly the
lack of invasions into Central/Northern Europe by Greek or Roman
forces until last centuries BC and no major Germanic invasions of the
south until even later), the Greek and Roman world did not come into
contact with the Germanic world until relatively late (though they
were introduced to them earlier than to the Slavs and Balts), which
explains why the Germans are not introduced to us until te end of the
first millennium BC. One thing is certain, however - Celts and
Germans existed in their respective areas long before they entered
written history - this much can be deduced from archeology at least.
> True, I have very limited knowledge of Celtic etymology and various
> other branches. That's why I stay out of discussions of them.
You have not completely stayed out of discussions of Celtic
etymology, which is one of the reasons that I am complaining about
your postings here.
> I am bothered by the fact that you seem to believe that it's bad
> practise to come up with etymologies without "authority".
Ii is certainly bad practice to engage in folk-etymology. You need to
have some authority for your guesses - for example, you should
definitely be fluent in Pokorny at the very least - and even his work
will only get you so far (as he did not utilize laryngeals in his
landmark IEW and more than a few of his reconstructions have been
atacked by more recent commentators).
> > 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.
I have already addressed them in the past. This is not an ad hominem
attack - I am trying to help you out in the long run.
> 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.
I think that most people who are familiar with the internet know that
Usenet is not a reliable source for factual information.
> BTW I have a Bachelor's degree in linguistics from the university
in
> Copenhagen. Will that do?
Apparently not, as it seem that you need to conduct a little more
specialized research on comparative PIE linguistics, as well as IE
etymology. A linguistics degree is not required, by the way, as I do
not possess a linguistics degree, yet I feel that I have conducted
enough research on the topics in question to speak with some bit of
authority on certain matters, while knowing when to bow to the
experts (such as Piotr) on others.
- Chris Gwinn