Re: Bow and arrow

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "andrew_and_inge"

<100761.200@...>

> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > I also think that it is silly to think that the "Anglo-

Saxons"

> > (the modern ones) are the result of only 2 or 3 well defined

groups

> > of people.
> >
> > > I totally condemn the unscientific pseudo-scientist who said

that.

> >
> > If you are saying that you agree with me then perhaps we are
> wasting
> > time. This was my main point.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > >That's no a "moral
> > > > imperative". That's an imperative of reason.
> > > >
> > > Erh, what? My brain is too small to follow your line of

reasoning.

> >
> > It is "against reason" to "draw more conclusions than the

evidence

> > allows", and more than just "a professional hazard". Your
> imperative
> > to draw conclusions which are not justified is not just taking a
> > risk, but aiming to fail.
>
> My "imperative to draw conclusions which are not justified"? Are

you

> trying to insult me?
>

No. Don't read anything that interesting into it. You asked if I was
stating a moral imperative. I was not, but I think you eventually
made it clear that against a normal rational concern about the
weakness of your argument, you do have a sort of moral imperative -
an imperative to draw conclusions beyond what the evidence
justifies. You said that yourself. If my answer now sounds odd it
comes from the odd context which started with your quesiton about
my "moral imperative".

By the way, you misquote my quotation of you in a way which we seems
destined to creating misunderstandings. Or did you actually read me
that way?

> >Consider the first ch in name of the
> > Luxemburgish town of Echternach. It seems to have be recorded as

a

> p
> > by classical writers?
>
> German 'Luft', Dutch 'lucht' "air". Would you like to use this as
> evidence too?

So how did a "p" in classical times being spoken by Celtic people,
end up as a "ch"? I had been thinking it was via an early change
to "k", and then on to "ch" as per High German. You seem to be
saying that it was via "f"? Of course the first Germanic shift of
p>f had finished long before the classical writing we refer to, so
you mean the high german shift? But would we expect High German
Luft>Lucht? Or was that a Frankish change shared by Dutch and
Luxemburgish? Does Luxemburgish have Luft or Lucht?

> > Interesting speculation. But you seem to admit that you
> > connect "cultures", "languages" and political groupings in a

rather

> > speculative way? And then you write as if your conclusions were
> more
> > than just speculations.
> >
>
> Why do you think sticking a label on something counts as an

argument?

>

It does not. I was trying to understand the foundation of your
argument. Thank you.

Best Regards
Andrew