Re: Schöffe I

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@>
> > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I am reconstructing backwards from the dual dialect division in
> > Germany. That is the explicandum. Why does the Northern and
> > Southern half of Germany speak dialects so different that they
> > might have been separate states, and yet history says they never
> > were, and why is the Southern dialect the upper dialect in the
> > North yet there was no historical nor prehistorical conquest from
> > the South?
>
> That's a modern phenomenon.

What is a modern phenomenon?

>
> [...]
> >> and how quickly and in
> >> which way did the autochtonous Latin, Celtic etc. populations
> >> germanize. And that happened esp. 6-7 centuries after Ariovist.
> >> In Ariovist's time, South Germany was as Celtic and Roman as
> >> they come.

> > No it was Celtic. Helvetic to be precise.
> > I told you before, apparently it didn't seep in:
> > http://tinyurl.com/629gqb4

> >> Places such as Rottweil and Augsburg were Roman urbes
> >> (Augsburg was a municipium, and its name Augusta Vindelicorum
> >> shows the area was or had been inhabited by the Celts called
> >> Vindelici, it wasn't called Augusta Bastarniorum or Charudesiorum
> >> :))
>
> > No, wrong.
>
> Exactly what part of it are you saying is wrong?

I added the context of the answer. As you can see George maintained that these Roman urbes were in place in Ariovistus' time, in the 1st century BCE, which they weren't. I'm not disputing that they were there later.

> [...]
>
> >> First of all, verify all _other possibilities_ the SPQR
> >> empire _had_ in order to procure slaves of Germanic extraction!
> >> And only when you scientifically can prove Rome had no other
> >> sources...
>
> > We have a difference of method here. I see it as being up to my
> > various opponents to point out alternative scenarios.
>
> Because you don't understand scholarship. You're the one proposing
> the alternative scenario, so the burden of argument is on you.

Yes, I should show that my proposal does better than the competition, which I did. I looked at all the other sources from where the Roman could have obtained Germanic slaves in the period up to Spartacus' rebellion, and there weren't any.

> [...]
>
> > I don't assert stuff, I propose it.
>
> So you keep saying. You may even believe it. It doesn't look like
> it to me (or, apparently, to George). Give it a few months, and
> today's 'proposal' will become the dogma on which you build the
> next chapter of your novel.

Dogma is when you force other people to stop making proposal differnt from your own. I don't do that.

> [...]
>
> >> Remember what Brian told you: it isn't enough to garner heaps
> >> of data.
>
> > Brian finds it difficult to entertain more than one idea at the
> > same time.
>
> Not in the least. I'm just fed up with your pretense that your
> mud-pies are really scholarly cake. If you can't put the
> ingredients together properly and present the result in a coherent
> form, you're wasting everyone's time. Frankly, I don't think that
> you can: I see no evidence that you recognize what constitutes a
> genuine argument, let alone that you know how to present one.

Do you have any concrete objections? And as I said, if there is something you think I've presented unclearly, just ask.

> Like Sean and his magic reconstructions, you have knowledge far in
> excess of your understanding.

You just can't get it that someone knows more than you yet doesn't share your beliefs?


Torsten