Re[6]: [tied] Gemination in Celtic

At 2:19:54 PM on Saturday, March 29, 2008, fournet.arnaud
wrote:

> From: Brian M. Scott

>> At 9:37:03 AM on Saturday, March 29, 2008, fournet.arnaud
>> wrote:

>>> From: Brian M. Scott

>>>> At 3:00:24 AM on Saturday, March 29, 2008,
>>>> fournet.arnaud wrote:

>>>>> From: Anders R. Joergensen

>>>>>>> pott- "pottery" < *kwoH2-t-eH2 k_w_H2 as in Greek
>>>>>>> kaFiô "to burn"

>>>>>> What Celtic words are you referring to?

>>>>> French pot for example.

>>>> Not a good choice.

>>> Why is not a good choice ?

>> For a reason that should be obvious from the two passages
>> that I quoted, one of which I even left in French for
>> you: it does not appear to be a Celtic word in the first
>> place.

> With all due respect to Dauzat and You, I don't think the
> statement by Dauzat that *pott is supposedly preceltic
> amounts to anything but thin air.

It really doesn't matter whether he's right or not, though
he clearly isn't the only one who has taken that view; the
real point is that a Celtic origin is *not* generally
accepted, so it's relatively pointless to offer it as
evidence unless you can also make a convincing case that it
is Celtic. And I've yet to see you make a convincing case
for one of your ... eccentric ... ideas.

[...]

> Find something better to prove your point please.

Not my problem: you're the one with something to prove.

Brian