From: Tavi
Message: 69512
Date: 2012-05-04
>I strongly disagree. It's "Truth" or "Being" (in Heidegger's
> As everybody knows, none of us is the Voice of Truth.
>
> Our task isI'm afraid you confuse (I don't know if purposely or not) Basque and
> to apply a methodology.
> The methodology I apply is: I chose an area where the presence of a
> given language is assured (in this case, by inscriptions), I apply
> independently verified sound-laws and see what comes out.
> Distinguishing Celtic from non-Celtic is a procedure that can be
> started only *after* that one has completed both the application of
> the Celtic analysis and the application of every non-Celtic analysis.
> Dubious and ambiguous cases can emerge only from such a preliminary
> work.
> I'm doing my part for Celtic; You are doing Your part for a
> language that maybe never existed as such, but has been anyway
> seriously proposed and therefore must be taken into consideration.
> Beside that, we have to look for ambiguous Latin/Celtic and
> Germanic/Celtic cases. As Tavi will promptly remember to us, we have
> to take into consideration Basque as well (although no Basque
> linguistic text has ever been found in this area).
>
> I fear that in 1957 we won't have completed our tasks yet.I see you've put your clock a century back. :-)
>