Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants) 
Author Message
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)
Defending the "Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan", I've been asked :
"Why have you not provided a summary ?"...
Well, this is a reasonable request, at least if the enquirer does'n't
expect more than what a SUMMARY may give !...  So, here is a short
lecture about the Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan :

1)- The BASIC HYPOTHESIS of the theory is that the development of the
IE-languages has followed the following historical scheme :
Paleolithic/ Beginning of Neolithic : "Nostratic", then "Early
Proto-IE" stage, with : mono-syllabic roots -- Simplified grammar --
differenciation of the meaning by vocalic or consonantal variation
(strong v/. week consonants) AND by agglutination of roots.
Neolithic/ Bronze Age : Final Proto-IE stage, followed for the IE
stricto sensu languages by the "IE-stage" (= mixing of Proto-IE
languages with the "Kurgane language").

2)- The aim of the efforts of the Kretschmerian searchers  (like J.
Faucounau for instance) is to show that ETRUSCAN BELONGS to this
PROTO-IE stage.
For this demonstration, they have first to determine the "Proto-IE
roots". There are two ways of doing so : a)- If the "nostratic root"
is known (10 to 15% of the cases), they have to find the intermediary
between this "nostratic root" and the IE corresponding root.  b)- If
the "nostratic root" is not known (more than 80% of the cases), they
have to determine which IE-roots may belong to the same "family"
issued from ONE "Proto-IE root". The first step is, therefore, to
determine this "proto-IE root", with its primitive meaning (Example :
Proto-IE *LeU : "corpse"), then to establish the "SEMANTIC CHAINS"
relying the "Proto-IE root" to its DIVERSE DERIVATIVES in the
IE-languages, with a SPECIAL ATTENTION to the MEANING of the GREEK
DERIVATIVES.

3)- Why this "special attention" ?.. Because experience has shown that
this particular meaning generally applies to Etruscan.
Example : Proto-IE root *LeU : "corpse" --> Rottening of the flesh
leads, after a while, to the LOOSENING of the strings, binding the
corpse --> idea of "to loose", "to deliver" of the root (Greek lu?,
Etruscan >luni> and >luter>).  NOTA : But in Etruscan <lupu> : "to be
dead", the primitive meaning of the Proto-IE root has been kept.

4)- It is obvious that this approach is a TREMENDOUS and TIME
CONSUMING task !.. But the first obtained results are very
satisfactory, in spite of what the ignarrogants may think about a
METHOD that they IGNORE !...

Regards to all !
grapheus



Sun, 11 Dec 2005 02:36:00 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

Quote:
> Defending the "Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan", I've been asked :
> "Why have you not provided a summary ?"...

...

Perhaps, but more have asked why you don't just provide a serious
reference with full documentation and let people judge by themselves.



Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:45:27 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

Quote:

> 2)- The aim of the efforts of the Kretschmerian searchers  (like J.
> Faucounau for instance) is to show that ETRUSCAN BELONGS to this
> PROTO-IE stage.

That is a faulty goal (in the same way that the P****** D***
interpretation is faulty). The question should be to DISCOVER WHETHER
Etruscan belongs to Proto-IE (or to any other attested language or
reconstructed family).
--



Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:51:13 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

Quote:


> > Defending the "Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan", I've been asked :
> > "Why have you not provided a summary ?"...
> ...

> Perhaps, but more have asked why you don't just provide a serious
> reference with full documentation and let people judge by themselves.

You are right. But, you know, it is not always possible to provide
lazy people with "a full documentation" on the NET. They have,
sometimes, to make the effort of reading the original document by
themselves !.. Mainly when this one contains illustrations which
cannot be reproduced !...

grapheus



Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:56:09 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

Quote:


> > Defending the "Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan", I've been asked :
> > "Why have you not provided a summary ?"...
> ...

> Perhaps, but more have asked why you don't just provide a serious
> reference with full documentation and let people judge by themselves.

I've always given the references of the books or papers written about
the theories that I defend !..
The true problem is that dogmatic people like you REFUSE TO READ THEM
!..
Their motives ?... I quote your own words ( Ref. your post of February
20 about the Phaistos Disk) : " Why waste time ?" -- "No need to go
into detail -- etc.
In fact, their wish is to be free to spread around their lies (I quote
again one of your posts concerning the Phaistos Disk : "There is no
clear evidence" -- "The language was hypothesized" -- etc.)  without
anyone pointing out at their ignarrogance !...

grapheus



Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:47:12 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

Quote:

> Defending the "Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan", I've been asked :
> "Why have you not provided a summary ?"...
> Well, this is a reasonable request, at least if the enquirer does'n't
> expect more than what a SUMMARY may give !...  So, here is a short
> lecture about the Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan :

> 1)- The BASIC HYPOTHESIS of the theory is that the development of the
> IE-languages has followed the following historical scheme :
> Paleolithic/ Beginning of Neolithic : "Nostratic", then "Early
> Proto-IE" stage, with : mono-syllabic roots -- Simplified grammar --

They must have had a very precise method of divination, if they were able to
simplify the grammar of their own future. And did they sleep through the
Mesolithic, or what?

Quote:
> differenciation of the meaning by vocalic or consonantal variation
> (strong v/. week consonants) AND by agglutination of roots.
> Neolithic/ Bronze Age : Final Proto-IE stage, followed for the IE
> stricto sensu languages by the "IE-stage" (= mixing of Proto-IE
> languages with the "Kurgane language").

I suppose the K-team keeps the Kurgane dictionary locked up in the coach's
office?

Quote:
> 2)- The aim of the efforts of the Kretschmerian searchers  (like J.
> Faucounau for instance) is to show that ETRUSCAN BELONGS to this
> PROTO-IE stage.

Etruscan belongs to the Neolithic/Bronze Age? Sorry, wrong. And supposing
that Etruscan did not change between the EBA and 700 BCE is purely _ad hoc_.

Quote:
> For this demonstration, they have first to determine the "Proto-IE
> roots". There are two ways of doing so : a)- If the "nostratic root"
> is known (10 to 15% of the cases), they have to find the intermediary
> between this "nostratic root" and the IE corresponding root.  b)- If

Does _obscurum per obscurius_ ring any bells?

Quote:
> the "nostratic root" is not known (more than 80% of the cases), they
> have to determine which IE-roots may belong to the same "family"
> issued from ONE "Proto-IE root". The first step is, therefore, to
> determine this "proto-IE root", with its primitive meaning (Example :
> Proto-IE *LeU : "corpse"), then to establish the "SEMANTIC CHAINS"
> relying the "Proto-IE root" to its DIVERSE DERIVATIVES in the
> IE-languages, with a SPECIAL ATTENTION to the MEANING of the GREEK
> DERIVATIVES.

> 3)- Why this "special attention" ?.. Because experience has shown that
> this particular meaning generally applies to Etruscan.

Experience already? Not very good at covering up "crock circles", are we?

Quote:
> Example : Proto-IE root *LeU : "corpse" --> Rottening of the flesh
> leads, after a while, to the LOOSENING of the strings, binding the
> corpse --> idea of "to loose", "to deliver" of the root (Greek lu?,
> Etruscan >luni> and >luter>).  NOTA : But in Etruscan <lupu> : "to be
> dead", the primitive meaning of the Proto-IE root has been kept.

How do you know that <lupu> is not a euphemism, meaning literally 'climber'
or the like rather than 'dier'? The metronymic <Lupuval>, genitive of
*<Lupui>, is found in CIE 484 (for form cf. <Pumpuval> CIE 1511, var. of
<Pumpual> gen. of <Pumpui>). Why would someone use 'Dier' or 'Dead' as a
gentilicium? 'Climber', 'Crosser' or the like is reasonable both as a
gentilicium and as a funerary euphemism.

And even if <lupu> is not euphemistic, you have provided no principled way
of connecting it with the gentilicium <Luni>, much less with any Greek or
Indo-European root. You have indicated no theory of {*filter*}l root-extensions
in Etruscan or in the K-team's "Proto-IE". An impartial observer might
surmise that your proposals were obtained from spilled alphabet soup.

Quote:
> 4)- It is obvious that this approach is a TREMENDOUS and TIME
> CONSUMING task !.. But the first obtained results are very
> satisfactory, in spite of what the ignarrogants may think about a
> METHOD that they IGNORE !...

Either none of these results has yet been posted here, or the K-team is VERY
easily satisfied!

DGK



Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:06:38 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

Quote:



> > > Defending the "Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan", I've been asked :
> > > "Why have you not provided a summary ?"...
> > ...

> > Perhaps, but more have asked why you don't just provide a serious
> > reference with full documentation and let people judge by themselves.

> You are right. But, you know, it is not always possible to provide
> lazy people with "a full documentation" on the NET. They have,
> sometimes, to make the effort of reading the original document by
> themselves !.. Mainly when this one contains illustrations which
> cannot be reproduced !...

The point of the question seems to be that you haven't provided the
reference to the original document (I don't recall whether you have or
not).
--



Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:04:32 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)
Your post shows how narrow-minded and stupid you are !..


Quote:

> > Defending the "Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan", I've been asked :
> > "Why have you not provided a summary ?"...
> > Well, this is a reasonable request, at least if the enquirer does'n't
> > expect more than what a SUMMARY may give !...  So, here is a short
> > lecture about the Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan :

> > 1)- The BASIC HYPOTHESIS of the theory is that the development of the
> > IE-languages has followed the following historical scheme :
> > Paleolithic/ Beginning of Neolithic : "Nostratic", then "Early
> > Proto-IE" stage, with : mono-syllabic roots -- Simplified grammar --

> They must have had a very precise method of divination, if they were able to
> simplify the grammar of their own future.

First STUPID remark of yours ! .. Maybe you prefer the word
"simplistic" ?...

Quote:
>  And did they sleep through the
> Mesolithic, or what?

Second STUPID remark of yours !.. Can you not guess that
"Paleolithic/Beginning of Neolithic" means : "Period going from
Paleolithic to the beginning of Neolithic included" ?...

Quote:

> > differenciation of the meaning by vocalic or consonantal variation
> > (strong v/. weak consonants) AND by agglutination of roots.
> > Neolithic/ Bronze Age : Final Proto-IE stage, followed for the IE
> > stricto sensu languages by the "IE-stage" (= mixing of Proto-IE
> > languages with the "Kurgane language").

> I suppose the K-team keeps the Kurgane dictionary locked up in the coach's
> office?

How FUNNY is this remark of yours !.. You should work in a circus. As
a clown !..

Quote:

> > 2)- The aim of the efforts of the Kretschmerian searchers  (like J.
> > Faucounau for instance) is to show that ETRUSCAN BELONGS to this
> > PROTO-IE stage.

> Etruscan belongs to the Neolithic/Bronze Age?

Third STUPID remark of yours !... Who told you that the "Proto-IE
stage" stopped at the end of the Bronze Age ?..  Are you stupid enough
to confuse the "Linguistical Age" of a language with its "Life Time"
?...  Basque has been attested very late and it's still alive.
Nevertheless, it is one of the OLDEST language of Europe !..

Quote:
> Sorry, wrong. And supposing
> that Etruscan did not change between the EBA and 700 BCE is purely _ad hoc_.

Fourth STUPID remark of yours !.. Of course, it did change a bit !..
But not much than Greek, for instance, during the same period !..

Quote:
> > For this demonstration, they have first to determine the "Proto-IE
> > roots". There are two ways of doing so : a)- If the "nostratic root"
> > is known (10 to 15% of the cases), they have to find the intermediary
> > between this "nostratic root" and the IE corresponding root.  b)- If

> Does _obscurum per obscurius_ ring any bells?

And does STUPIDITY ring anything to your ears ?..

Quote:

> > the "nostratic root" is not known (more than 80% of the cases), they
> > have to determine which IE-roots may belong to the same "family"
> > issued from ONE "Proto-IE root". The first step is, therefore, to
> > determine this "proto-IE root", with its primitive meaning (Example :
> > Proto-IE *LeU : "corpse"), then to establish the "SEMANTIC CHAINS"
> > relying the "Proto-IE root" to its DIVERSE DERIVATIVES in the
> > IE-languages, with a SPECIAL ATTENTION to the MEANING of the GREEK
> > DERIVATIVES.

> > 3)- Why this "special attention" ?.. Because experience has shown that
> > this particular meaning generally applies to Etruscan.

> Experience already?

YES !.. When the meaning obtained by the method of dozens of words
FITS PRETTY WELL WITH THE CONTEXT, one may talk about "experience" !..

Quote:
> Not very good at covering up "crock circles", are we?

> > Example : Proto-IE root *LeU : "corpse" --> Rottening of the flesh
> > leads, after a while, to the LOOSENING of the strings, binding the
> > corpse --> idea of "to loose", "to deliver" of the root (Greek lu?,
> > Etruscan >luni> and >luter>).  NOTA : But in Etruscan <lupu> : "to be
> > dead", the primitive meaning of the Proto-IE root has been kept.

> How do you know that <lupu> is not a euphemism, meaning literally 'climber'
> or the like rather than 'dier'?

Because the SIMPLEST HYPOTHESIS -ACCEPTED by ALL Etruscologists but
you - is that this word means : "(he) DIED (at the age of ..etc.)"

Quote:
> The metronymic <Lupuval>, genitive of
> *<Lupui>, is found in CIE 484 (for form cf. <Pumpuval> CIE 1511, var. of
> <Pumpual> gen. of <Pumpui>). Why would someone use 'Dier' or 'Dead' as a
> gentilicium? 'Climber', 'Crosser' or the like is reasonable both as a
> gentilicium and as a funerary euphemism.

Fith STUPID remark of yours !..
First, <lupuval< may be a matronymic or a profession. In both cases,
have you ever heard about UNDERTAKERS ?..
If you had followed the work of the Kretschmerians, you would even
know that the -val ending is probably coming from a Proto-IE root
meaning : "to burn". The Proper Name <Lupu-val> means : "the one who
burns the dead bodies". As far as I know, Etruscans did not burn their
deads, except during epidemics. This explains why this Proper (or
professional) Name is pretty rare (Only one known attestation).

Quote:
> And even if <lupu> is not euphemistic, you have provided no principled way
> of connecting it with the gentilicium <Luni>, much less with any Greek or
> Indo-European root. You have indicated no theory of {*filter*}l root-extensions
> in Etruscan or in the K-team's "Proto-IE". An impartial observer might
> surmise that your proposals were obtained from spilled alphabet soup.

Sixth STUPID remark of yours !..
I have ALREADY mentioned that the Proto-IE roots were MONO-SYLLABIC :
The link between <lupu> and <luni> is the Proto-IE root *LeU- >
Etruscan <lu-> !

Quote:
> > 4)- It is obvious that this approach is a TREMENDOUS and TIME
> > CONSUMING task !.. But the first obtained results are very
> > satisfactory, in spite of what the ignarrogants may think about a
> > METHOD that they IGNORE !...

> Either none of these results has yet been posted here

YES !..  I have been the first to SUCCINCTLY mention a few of the
obtained results !..
And the very little I posted has created a flood of stupid remarks by
IGNARROGANTS like you !.. Very encouraging for me for posting more
!...

grapheus

 or the K-team is VERY

Quote:
> easily satisfied!

> DGK



Mon, 12 Dec 2005 04:40:43 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

...

Quote:
> > Perhaps, but more have asked why you don't just provide a serious
> > reference with full documentation and let people judge by themselves.

> You are right. But, you know, it is not always possible to provide
> lazy people with "a full documentation" on the NET. They have,
> sometimes, to make the effort of reading the original document by
> themselves !.. Mainly when this one contains illustrations which
> cannot be reproduced !...

Refer to = provide bibliographic reference, ie journal, volume, page, year.


Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:48:10 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

Quote:
>Your post shows how narrow-minded and stupid you are !..


>> > Defending the "Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan", I've been asked :
>> > "Why have you not provided a summary ?"...
>> > Well, this is a reasonable request, at least if the enquirer does'n't
>> > expect more than what a SUMMARY may give !...  So, here is a short
>> > lecture about the Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan :
>> > 1)- The BASIC HYPOTHESIS of the theory is that the development of the
>> > IE-languages has followed the following historical scheme :
>> > Paleolithic/ Beginning of Neolithic : "Nostratic", then "Early
>> > Proto-IE" stage, with : mono-syllabic roots -- Simplified grammar --
>> They must have had a very precise method of divination, if they were able to
>> simplify the grammar of their own future.
>First STUPID remark of yours ! .. Maybe you prefer the word
>"simplistic" ?...

Very unlikely, since Douglas undoubtedly knows what 'simplistic'
actually means.

[...]

Quote:
>Third STUPID remark of yours !... Who told you that the "Proto-IE
>stage" stopped at the end of the Bronze Age ?..  Are you stupid enough
>to confuse the "Linguistical Age" of a language with its "Life Time"
>?...  Basque has been attested very late and it's still alive.
>Nevertheless, it is one of the OLDEST language of Europe !..

I wondered when we were going to get to that idiocy.  Basque is
no older than any other European language.

[...]



Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:09:58 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

Quote:



> >Third STUPID remark of yours !... Who told you that the "Proto-IE
> >stage" stopped at the end of the Bronze Age ?..  Are you stupid enough
> >to confuse the "Linguistical Age" of a language with its "Life Time"
> >?...  Basque has been attested very late and it's still alive.
> >Nevertheless, it is one of the OLDEST language of Europe !..

> I wondered when we were going to get to that idiocy.  Basque is
> no older than any other European language.

I did'n't say "older", but "linguistically older" !..
But, of course, you did'n't pay attention, made blind by your
preconceived ideas !..
Of course, the words "linguistically older" suppose that "Language"
has performed EVOLUTIONS, like the living creatures on Earth did !..
(I don't know whether you are an "Evolutionist" or a "Creationist"
yourself ... But most scientists are Evolutionists !)..
The most natural supposition, in an "Evolutionist Scheme",  is that
"Language" was first a succession of monosyllables, meaning : Go !
Put it here ! Stop ! etc.  Then , there has been a series of more
sophisticated STAGES, the first one being the creation of new
words/concepts by AGGLUTINATION,  the final one being the creation of
a true GRAMMAR.
This scheme is coherent with the "Nostratic notion" :  If one accepts
the existence of a "Nostratic stage" , when in particular "Semitic
Family"  and "Indoeuropean Family" were still not differenciated, it
is noticeable that the "Grammatization Phenomenon" has been different
in both families (Mainly "Vocalic change" in Semitic, mainly
"post-positions" in Indoeuropean), so that the "Grammatization
Phenomenon" should have occurrred last.
In this scheme, an "agglutinative language", like basque is
"LINGUISTICALLY older" than a more evolved language.
But you may believe in "Creationism"  if you want !.. I will not argue
with you. Just classifying you as an "obscurantist" !..

grapheus



Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:47:33 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

Quote:





> > >Third STUPID remark of yours !... Who told you that the "Proto-IE
> > >stage" stopped at the end of the Bronze Age ?..  Are you stupid enough
> > >to confuse the "Linguistical Age" of a language with its "Life Time"
> > >?...  Basque has been attested very late and it's still alive.
> > >Nevertheless, it is one of the OLDEST language of Europe !..

> > I wondered when we were going to get to that idiocy.  Basque is
> > no older than any other European language.

> I did'n't say "older", but "linguistically older" !..
> But, of course, you did'n't pay attention, made blind by your
> preconceived ideas !..
> Of course, the words "linguistically older" suppose that "Language"
> has performed EVOLUTIONS, like the living creatures on Earth did !..
> (I don't know whether you are an "Evolutionist" or a "Creationist"
> yourself ... But most scientists are Evolutionists !)..
> The most natural supposition, in an "Evolutionist Scheme",  is that
> "Language" was first a succession of monosyllables, meaning : Go !
> Put it here ! Stop ! etc.  Then , there has been a series of more
> sophisticated STAGES, the first one being the creation of new
> words/concepts by AGGLUTINATION,  the final one being the creation of
> a true GRAMMAR.
> This scheme is coherent with the "Nostratic notion" :  If one accepts
> the existence of a "Nostratic stage" , when in particular "Semitic
> Family"  and "Indoeuropean Family" were still not differenciated, it
> is noticeable that the "Grammatization Phenomenon" has been different
> in both families (Mainly "Vocalic change" in Semitic, mainly
> "post-positions" in Indoeuropean), so that the "Grammatization
> Phenomenon" should have occurrred last.
> In this scheme, an "agglutinative language", like basque is
> "LINGUISTICALLY older" than a more evolved language.
> But you may believe in "Creationism"  if you want !.. I will not argue
> with you. Just classifying you as an "obscurantist" !..

So, Grapheus, you have just demonstrated that your knowledge of language
and linguistics has not moved out of the (early) nine{*filter*}th century. No
one -- including your beloved Kretschmer -- believes in such ignarrogant
theories any more.
--



Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:49:56 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

Quote:

>I wondered when we were going to get to that idiocy.  Basque is
>no older than any other European language.

He probably means that it belongs to a language family that was in Europe
before IE.


Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:16:11 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

Quote:




>> >Third STUPID remark of yours !... Who told you that the "Proto-IE
>> >stage" stopped at the end of the Bronze Age ?..  Are you stupid enough
>> >to confuse the "Linguistical Age" of a language with its "Life Time"
>> >?...  Basque has been attested very late and it's still alive.
>> >Nevertheless, it is one of the OLDEST language of Europe !..
>> I wondered when we were going to get to that idiocy.  Basque is
>> no older than any other European language.
>I did'n't say "older", but "linguistically older" !..

I know what you said.  It's idiotic.

[...]

Quote:
>(I don't know whether you are an "Evolutionist" or a "Creationist"
>yourself ... But most scientists are Evolutionists !)..

There's no such thing as an 'evolutionist', because there is no
doctrine of 'evolutionism'; there is simply science.  And opposed
to it there are various types of Creationists, who are as
ignorant of (or in some cases merely as unwilling to accept)
science as you are ignorant of linguistics.

[...]



Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:56:09 GMT
 Kretschmerian approach of Etruscan (Was : Etruscan as reviewed by ignarrogants)

Quote:





> > > >Third STUPID remark of yours !... Who told you that the "Proto-IE
> > > >stage" stopped at the end of the Bronze Age ?..  Are you stupid enough
> > > >to confuse the "Linguistical Age" of a language with its "Life Time"
> > > >?...  Basque has been attested very late and it's still alive.
> > > >Nevertheless, it is one of the OLDEST language of Europe !..

> > > I wondered when we were going to get to that idiocy.  Basque is
> > > no older than any other European language.

> > I did'n't say "older", but "linguistically older" !..
> > But, of course, you did'n't pay attention, made blind by your
> > preconceived ideas !..
> > Of course, the words "linguistically older" suppose that "Language"
> > has performed EVOLUTIONS, like the living creatures on Earth did !..
> > (I don't know whether you are an "Evolutionist" or a "Creationist"
> > yourself ... But most scientists are Evolutionists !)..
> > The most natural supposition, in an "Evolutionist Scheme",  is that
> > "Language" was first a succession of monosyllables, meaning : Go !
> > Put it here ! Stop ! etc.  Then , there has been a series of more
> > sophisticated STAGES, the first one being the creation of new
> > words/concepts by AGGLUTINATION,  the final one being the creation of
> > a true GRAMMAR.
> > This scheme is coherent with the "Nostratic notion" :  If one accepts
> > the existence of a "Nostratic stage" , when in particular "Semitic
> > Family"  and "Indoeuropean Family" were still not differenciated, it
> > is noticeable that the "Grammatization Phenomenon" has been different
> > in both families (Mainly "Vocalic change" in Semitic, mainly
> > "post-positions" in Indoeuropean), so that the "Grammatization
> > Phenomenon" should have occurrred last.
> > In this scheme, an "agglutinative language", like basque is
> > "LINGUISTICALLY older" than a more evolved language.
> > But you may believe in "Creationism"  if you want !.. I will not argue
> > with you. Just classifying you as an "obscurantist" !..

> So, Grapheus, you have just demonstrated that your knowledge of language
> and linguistics has not moved out of the (early) nine{*filter*}th century. No
> one -- including your beloved Kretschmer -- believes in such ignarrogant
> theories any more.

EASIER to say than to DEMONSTRATE !...
I wonder what is the theory YOU are advocating !..  Because you are
obviously better in REJECTING a theory you don't like, than in
DEFENDING this marvellous "twenty Century Theory" which has received -
following your post - the agreement of the huge majority of the to-day
linguists !.. Like
in Galileo's time, there was a HUGE MAJORITY of scholars to believe
that the Earth was the center of the Universe !...
As for Paul Kretschmer, you are right :  it would be difficult for him
to believe in "Nostratic" and the like : he died a long time ago !...
But I suppose that ignarrogants don't know that, right ?...

grapheus



Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:26:28 GMT
 
 [ 80 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

 Relevant Pages 

1. About the Etruscan Inscription TLE 209 (Was : Etruscan Numbers)

2. Etruscan, as reviewed by ignarrogants (Was : "Languages closest to PIE ?")

3. Relationship between Etruscan and 'Ancient British Alphabet', was:Re: Answer From Alan Wilson Reference Alphabet & Etruscan Decipherments

4. Etruscan <clan> versus <clante/i> (was : Etruscan Numbers)

5. Etruscan as a "Kretschmerian Proto-IE" language

6. etruscan numbers

7. Interpretation of Etruscan texts

8. Hurrian-Urartian, NE Caucasian, Etruscan -- related?

9. Is Etruscan a Northeast Caucasian Language?

10. Etruscan

11. Etruscan

12. Etruscan, decyphered?


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software