From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60322
Date: 2008-09-25
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Arnaud Fournet" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>
> >> In case you are not aware of that, the mere restatement of
>> the standard point of view will not convince me. I
>> disagree that there is a primary sense and secondary
>> sense,
>
> That's your problem, not mine.
>
>> this story about primary and secondary is not an argument
>> in favor of orthodoxy, but a consequence of the orthodoxy.
>
> You're mistaken. It's an argument that ought to be obvious
> to anyone interested in language, with or without specific
> linguistic training and has doubtless been independently
> invented/discovered many times by many people in connection
> with many words.
>
>> I'm saying that there are two meanings : to die and to fall.
>> Both primary.
>
> And I'm saying that the evidence strongly suggests that
> you're wrong.
>
> Brian
>
==========
No,
the evidence does not suggest anything.
There are at least two verbs meaning "to kill",
plus a Celtic word meaning "battle ; warrior".
All of this is torn apart.
the problem lies in the interpretation of the evidence,
not in the evidence itself,
as is often the case...
Arnaud