Re: Icelandic/Old Norse -kk- suffix

At 3:44:52 PM on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, stlatos wrote:

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

>> At 3:11:53 PM on Monday, January 23, 2012, stlatos wrote:

>>> That makes no sense.

>> Says the man who wrote

>> The root * sak+ is identical to * kas+ 'cut' (as in cut >
>> kill/sacifice > (be) sacred, etc.), since the order of C
>> in a root, whether to each other or to V, didn't matter in
>> PIE.

>> and

>> All known languages not currently classified as IE are
>> actually from one branch of IE: Indo-Iranian.

> I am right. It's not my fault linguists have failed to see
> even the most obvious things I've discussed, or that
> you've chosen to believe them for no good reason.

The comment wasn't really directed at you: if you were
capable of recognizing that nonsense for the (admittedly
sophisticated) crackpottery that it is, you'd most likely
have done so long since. And by now the substantive problem
-- a thorough misunderstanding of the methodology of
linguistic reconstruction -- appears to be hopelessly
compounded by a large investment of ego and a rather
staggering intellectual arrogance. Think of it rather as a
public service announcement, or an analogue of the Surgeon
General's warning on alcoholic beverages.

Not that it really matters, I suppose: with the honorable
exception of DGK, who actually argues the cases for his
ideas, Cybalist is now largely a linguistic wasteland.

Brian