Re: PIE vestuary

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

>
> This is obviously utterly irrelevant.
>
> > No, it doesn't. Many specialists (e.g. Matasovic) reject
> > the existence of "Italo-Celtic" as indicating a close
> > genetical relationship, and thus they attribute their
> > shared isoglosses to language contact. This is exactly my
> > own position.
>
> Again, this is utterly irrelevant. Are you really too
> stupid to understand that the issue has nothing to do with
> the linguistic facts, your position, or even any linguist's
> position, and everything to do with the established meaning
> of standard terminology. Matasović rejects an Italo-Celtic
> taxon, but he knows what the term 'Italo-Celtic' means and
> uses the term with that meaning.
>

If you mean it's illegitimate to use a given term in a different sense
than its established meaning, I didn't do anything of the kind. My own
use of quotation marks indicates I don't believe in the existence of the
entity designated by this term, as in other cases such as "Nostratic",
"PIE" or "God".