Re: Origin of *h2arh3-trom 'plough'

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 69764
Date: 2012-06-04

At 3:35:56 AM on Monday, June 4, 2012, Tavi wrote:

> --- 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".

It wasn't intended to be; after all, there's no need to
belabor the obvious.

[...]

>>>>> 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?

No. I'm pointing out that your quasi-religious faith that
'these Germanic-Afrasian (especially Semitic) isoglosses
must reflect the languages spoken in Central Europe
Neolithic' is just that: an article of faith. Linguistic
conclusions require linguistic support.