From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 69461
Date: 2012-04-30
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"Yes, you did. That was precisely why DGK objected to your
> <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.