If one says "Basque is IE", he has to demonstrate it; hence Forni
2011, the proof and its burden. If one says "Basque isn't IE", he has
to read the (asserted) proof to the contrary or to keep silent, but
anyway he shouldn't accuse me of having done precisely what you had
asked (= mentioning a proof). If don't read it, it's your problem, not
mine. I read you, you don't read him. Your problem. I haven't asked
you to think that Basque is IE; you have reported the Iberian text in
order to show its closeness to Basque, not to ask me a demonstration
of the Indo-Europeanness of Iberian. We have a demonstration of the
Basque-Iberian closeness and, right of wrong, Forni 2011 for the IE
affiliation of Basque. I do 1 + 1, you not. Again, your problem, not
mine. If my genealogical ideas annoy you, it's your problem, not mine.
I remember that I had omitted to wriote that I consider Basque an
IE language exaclty in order to avoid such messages from your part;
You have then very loyally accused me to have purposely omitted Basque
from the languages I consider IE (read your messages if you don't
believe). I have then stated what I think of Basque, and my source.
This was the burden of proof. That I think so is proven by itself; I
have also added my source. I've never asked anybody to think what I
think. You, on the contrary, have not yet lost your amusing habit to
attack even what I say when describing myself...
2012/5/7, Tavi <
oalexandre@...>:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> > You've got to face the *hard* evidence that neither Basque nor
> Iberian
>> > are demonstrably IE.
>>
>> Read Forni 2011 and after having really done that give us your
>> motivated response. If it's wrong, it will be a light task for you.
>>
> No, thanks. The burden of proof is on you, not me. I quoted an Iberian
> text (which you appear to have ignored) so you can test your hypothesis
> it's an IE language.
>
>
>