From: tgpedersen
Message: 34377
Date: 2004-09-30
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>a
> 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
> > > risk, but aiming to fail.was
> >
> > 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
> stating a moral imperative. I was not, but I think you eventuallyI 'have' a moral imperative? You 'have' a moral imperative? Please
> 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".
>as
>
> > >Consider the first ch in name of the
> > > Luxemburgish town of Echternach. It seems to have be recorded
> aThere is a similar alternation in the Italic languages between kW
> > 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?