Re: Indigestion Number 640

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

>
> > > 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.
>

You don't seem to realize that this is a hypothesis, developed to
explain the inconvenient fact that no one mentions the Germani before
Caesar. It has never been proven (indeed it can't be). Snorri's
account simply matches the known facts better.

>
> > 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.
>

Example?

>
> > 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.

??
What I recall coming from you is [chuckle]s and ROFL. You seem more
keen on using "authority" than argument. This is not an ad hominem
attack - I am trying to help you out in the long run.

> - Chris Gwinn

Torsten