Re: Identity of the 'language of geminates'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 5:33:06 AM on Saturday, October 18, 2008, tgpedersen
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > You've misunderstood scientific method:
>
> Save your lectures for someone who actually understands it
> less well than you.

In what school of scientific method then, oh expert, is 'I see no
reason to concede your point' an argument?

>
> > when someone introduces a new idea (in casu that Snorri
> > (or someone) wasn't lying)
>
> New? Don't be ridiculous.

New in the context. Otherwise you rely on and copy a rejection which
was made when orthodox religion decided what was and what wasn't
acceptable history.

> [...]
>
> >>> If all the names had been somehow translated into ON,
> >>> their etymology from ON would have been transparent, but
> >>> for most of them, it is opaque.
>
> >> A majority are interpretable in ON, whatever their true
> >> etymologies may be.
>
> > Exactly. Even as kennings they sound strained.
>
> To you. But you have an agenda and a demonstrated inability
> to evaluate evidence.
>

Lose the attitude and the magical thinking. Your saying things are so
doesn't make them so.


Torsten