--- altamix <
altamix@...> wrote:
A folk ist
> now, we like it or
> not, the myths, traditions, belives and language.
> Or if you try to get these factor out of a identity
> of a folk you
> have no folk to speak about anymore:)))
*****GK: This is highly disingenuous. Piotr is after
all hardly trying to "factor out" myths and
traditions. What he is saying, unless I have
misunderstood him, but I don't think I have, is that
many such "myths" have no verifiable historical basis,
and must be used with immense caution (if used at all)
in any scientific attempts to reconstruct the real as
contrasted to the "imaginary or if you will "mythical"
history of a people.*******
> [Moeller]
>
>
> How you [Piotr GK] see, toponisms, hidronisms,
onomastics
> cannot be sufficient
> to say " we know that these were DIFFERENT
> languages"
>
> But we have wrotten affirmations which says " they
> speak the same
> language" . I guess it is far, far more as simple
> deduction and that what you embrace is , in this
> case, "scientific
> speculations"...
*****GK: Where did Strabo say that Celts, Dacians,
Thracians, and Latins "speak the same language"? I'll
tell you where, nowhere. You can certainly use him to
argue that to a Greek Dacian and Thracian sounded
pretty similar (and perhaps were as close as say
Portuguese and French or whatever). But you can't use
this to back up a theory of commonality (other than IE
of course) between all the languages you've mentioned.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/