Re[6]: [tied] Re: alb. gji

At 6:18:45 AM on Tuesday, March 4, 2003, Piotr Gasiorowski
wrote:

>> That's certainly my strong inclination, especially since
>> I've seen only a summary. At the same time, I'm not
>> willing to dismiss out of hand something that Roger Lass
>> is willing to take seriously.

> Roger Lass and I have been together to some of Theo
> Vennemann's talks about the (para-)Semitic "Atlantiker"
> and "Vasconic" Old Europeans, so we both know that stuff
> first-hand. I have also read Vennemann's articles on those
> matters. Frankly, much as I tend to agree with Roger on
> many issues, I can't understand why he should take
> Vennemann's etymologies seriously (I mean things like Gk.
> antHro:pos < "Vasconic" *andera- + *-(a)ba- 'woman's son')
> and mention them in _Historical Linguistic and Language
> Change_ (is that the source of your summary?)

Yes.

> as "work in progress". Courtesy may be a factor, since
> they've known each other for ages, and Theo Vennemann is
> an amiable man as well as being a distinguished linguist
> with a lot of valuable research to his credit. However,
> he's been under this Vasconic spell for too many years,
> and the quality of his forced etymologies only illustrates
> the sad effects of falling prey to an idée fixe.

That was very much my first reaction, especially since I'm
predisposed to be very skeptical of attempts to go that deep
in the first place. But I also know that I'm out of my
depth at that level, so under the circumstances I thought it
best to keep at least a slightly open mind in the absence of
any further information.

Brian