Re: Origin of *h2arh3-trom 'plough'

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

>
> > I'd call this the ostrich approach.
>
> Which is one of the reasons that you're not actually doing
> linguistics: you're the linguistic counterpart of a von
> Däniken or one of the Pyramidiots and can't tell (or don't
> care about) the difference between a just-so story and a
> closely reasoned, well-argued case.
>

Your comparison between me and Von Däniken is entertaining, although
it hardly can be considered "a closely reasoned, well-argued case".

> (And your just-so stories aren't nearly so entertaining as Edo

Nyland's!)

>

This reminds me of the IE-speaking warriors who supposedly domesticated
horses and invented the wheel. The distance between this idea and gas
chambers is very short.

> > IMHO these Germanic-Afrasian (especially Semitic)
> > isoglosses must reflect the languages spoken in Central
> > Europe Neolithic.
>
> > > I can see what your opinion is, but it still looks
> > > completely unfounded.
>
> > Why so?
>
> For the obvious reason that no evidence for it is apparent. You've

certainly offered none.

>

So you're pretending ploughs aren't related to agriculture and
agriculture wasn't invented in the Neolithic?