At 3:08:18 PM on Tuesday, August 9, 2011, stlatos wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>> At 1:31:10 PM on Sunday, August 7, 2011, stlatos wrote:
>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <bm.brian@> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> You haven't actually addressed the assertion that
>>>> *-mh1รณ- is 'the only shape ...' and whatever arguments
>>>> suppor[t] it; you've merely asserted a contrary opinion.
>>>> And after what I've seen of your opinions, methodology,
>>>> and judgement over the years, I've little reason to take
>>>> any of them seriously.
>>> That is not true.
>> Don't be ridiculous: you've addressed neither the
>> Tocharian etyma nor the arguments in question.
> Why would you think that providing one piece of supposed
> ev. that someone else has asserted as "proof" requires me
> to evaluate that bit alone?
The fact that someone with real credentials has singled out
a specific piece of evidence as decisive should be reason
enough to look at it very carefully.
However, that's beside the original point, though if you
still don't understand the difference between 'What evidence
exists?' and 'What conclusion is best supported by the
existing evidence?', there's nothing I can do to help you.
[...]
> None are perfect, but my methods have no serious flaws.
Apart from being sophisticated crackpottery served up with
the expected lashings of hubris.
I am a bit curious as to why you waste your time here,
though. Persuading some of us that your ideas have merit
would serve no scholarly purpose even if you could do it.
If you're serious, organize them coherently and publish
them. You'd have to start by justifying your non-standard
reconstruction of PIE phonology, of course; that alone would
probably require at least a monograph. If you can't get
them published through any of the recognized scholarly
outlets, there's always self-publication; nowadays it's
pretty easy. That still wouldn't ensure that your ideas
were seen by the relevant part of the linguistic community,
but it would at least make them available as something more
than the disorganized snippets that we've seen here, most of
which rest on unjustified (and often unexplicated or even
unstated) prior conclusions.
Brian