2012/4/30, Tavi <
oalexandre@...>:
> Then tell me why how could Basque, Iberian, Etruscan and other non-IE
> languages exist in Europe?
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Only an affiliation to a linguistic family is demonstrable; lack
of affiliation is never a granted conclusion. So the non-IE status of
Iberian, unless its affiliation to a non-IE family should be
demonstrated, runs the risk to be only provisional. You know very well
that the affiliation of both Basque and Etruscan is debated (if You
have objections, please write them in another post, since they aren't
so relevant to the problem of Ligurian as to fit in this discussion),
but all this isn't the point. Let's therefore admit that all of them
are non-IE.
Apart from Etruscan, whose arrival in Etruria may be relatively
late (according to the everlasting debate about its origin from
Anatolia - be it an Indo-European language or not), the linguistic
colonization of Europe in Prehistory is in no way a single-place trip;
every language can have taken part to the first anthropization of the
Continent.
> Tavi:
>> > Even if each individual lexemal were in fact inherited
>> > from "PIE", the compound is English (or Germanic at best), not PIE.
>>Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> Not at all, because its compositional rules are PIE as well as its
>> lexical members. It appears that You have serious difficulties in
>> operating with the notion of linguistic system. I suggest You to get a
>> bit deeper into such simple general concepts as system, norm, and
>> usage, because You don't seem to be able to make a distinction between
>> them. It's a matter a metalanguage, otherwise we waste our time
>>
Tavi:
> As I said before, "PIE" isn't a real language. That's all.
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Do You see? PIE cannot be a real language just because You have
*said* it. Note that You have never given any demonstration. You act
as if You were a God: what You say must be real, everything that
contradicts to what You say must be false.
>>Tavi:
> From French lande (a direct descendant of the Gaulish form), dialectal
> Portuguese branda and Gascon brana 'heath', we can reconstruct a Celtic
> protoform *Flanda: 'heath, uncultivated land'. In Insular Celtic and
> elsehwere, this word shifted its meaning to 'fallow land' and ultimately
> to 'land', probably linked to the spread of new agricultural
> technologies.
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Your etymologies are in no way incorrect; we could pleasantly
discuss about them (I'd have some objections about details), but it
would be useless because Your fundamental *error* is that You never
consider that two or more possibilities can compete. In Your 'humble'
opinion, Your hypotheses are automatically 100% sure, so there's never
room for other hypotheses. You don't even consider a scenario in which
Your hypothesis has 90% or 50% or 20% of probability, according to the
amount of other competing hypotheses. To discuss with You is therefore
a sad loss of time. Please continue to write etymologies - at least
they are really interesting - but You'll have to be eternally alone in
Your stainless persuasion to be the only one who makes always and only
completely true statements (and just for this reason every other
statement must be wrong...). Good luck
>
>> Let me observe that while many people tell You that You're are
>> wrong and insult You, now that You have found a person who says 'You
>> may be right' You attack him (me) many times a day. You assert that my
>> ideas are wrong, while I've always just pointed out that my model is
>> potentially valid no less than Yours. You keep on attacking one of the
>> few friends You have. You seem to look for fight insted of discussion
>>
Tavi:
> I'm only trying to transmit you the drawbacks of your theory within a
> rational discourse. I'm not attacking you, Guido, and I'm sorry if you
> feel so.
A rational discourse is made of arguments and proofs, Your
discourse abounds in interesting hypotheses, but lacks any effort to
make comparative evaluations. Don't You see that the drawbacks of my
theory are such just because my theory doesn't coincide with Your one?
You have never given any other reason, just said that "what You say is
false because I think different".
You can only describe what You are doing, it's probably physically
impossible for You to admit that Your hypotheses are just hypotheses,
You have to believe that they are 100% sure and therefore anything
else is wrong. If You don't realize that this is an attack of the
strongest possible kind, You are like a blind man who cannot imagine
colours. You are probably very happy; in any case I cannot open Your
eyes.
As You see, I'm not tied to my ideas: I have a gigantic scheme in
which every theory - Your one as well - can find its proper place; in
this scheme there are some hypotheses that I particularly like, other
ones that I develop just because they haven't been considered till
now, but my goal is to build a hierarchy of probabilities, where even
the less probable - but always rational - hypothesis can be the really
true explanation. If on one side I propose palaeolithic PIE
etymologies, on the other side I'm compelled to take into
consideration the opposite extreme, as e.g. Your model.
So, a confrontation of both models cannot emerge from our
discussion. For me, it's much more useful that You write and propose
new etymologies (instead of declaring that mine are wrong); for You,
my arguments are completely devoid of value, so it would be the same
or even better if I wouldn't express them. In sum, this discussion has
been a tremendous waste of time for both. It has been, moreover, a
further proof that a scientific discussion is often impossible.
When You'll propose a new etymology, I'll be happy (this is
automatically valid from now onwards, as it was before); when I'll
propose a new etymology, You'll write that You "strongly disagree" and
You'll bring no arguments except a different etymology of Yours, but
I'll try to avoid any reply, because what You consider rational is
just dogmatism for me and what I consider rational is consequence of
an unwarranted assumption - and therefore wrong (which is, in my
opinion, a false conclusion) - for You.
Please keep me and us informed of Your etymologies