Re: [tied] Re: Kastamonitu

----- Original Message -----

From: alexmoeller@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 8:26 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Kastamonitu

> [Moeller] Piotr let me understand just only one thing. Why does lingvists ignore the sources when they doesnt fit in their model? It is not just this one here. I dont speak just about the one with valhians. Forget them.

 

This would be a serious accusation if it were true. It would place linguists in the same category as pyramidologists and ufologists. Fortunately, it is just an unsubstantiated allegation. So far you've failed to show me (and the List), what particular evidence has been ignored by the linguists. It seems to me you've run out of arguments and are trying to change the subject.

 

> Let us remember about Cesar who wrote celtic from Galia is similar to latin. He did it. You sayd, celtic from Galia  it is not simmilar to latin.OK .

 

"Similar" is so subjective a term that it's hard to say wht it means in this context. Latin and Gaulish were related (though not very closely) and shared a number of similar-looking inherited words (in addition to having a number of loans in both direction). But the expected level of mutual comprehensibility would not have been higher than what occurs, say, between monolingual speakers of modern Portuguese and Romanian or modern English and Swedish. In other words, close to zero.

 

> But explain please this phenomen. We have sources who say a=b but they are rejected. This doesnt pass in my job.

 

Fortunately, we have access to a sizeable corpus of original Gaulish materials and so do not have to rely on Caesar's personal opinion, whatever it was. We actually know what Gaulish looked like. If you want to prove that "Latin = Gaulish", you are free to show it using Gaulish inscriptions. Go ahead! Forget Caesar and check for yourself!

 

> I do not ask to put you in trouble , I ask just because my work is logical one. I cannot make a programm works if I do not work logicaly. OK, linguistic is not mathematik,  that is clear. And in my example whas if german_word=true you are
right, if not, you are not right. So I have had the both possiblities there:-)))

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

> But the only one thing which disturb us is the ancient source who gives a name for a word considered slavic, where we have a methathesis before the slavic methathesis took place(the methathesis is considered to have been in the 8 centuries. That is the only bad point in all:-)

What source and what word? And who is "us"? Again, I have no idea what you're getting at.

 

Piotr