>That VIROS is a Latin word, and except through several hypothetical sound
>changes, it isn't a Gaulish one, is what I would call over-riding evidence.
LOL!!! How can you make such ridiculous statements? We have more than ample
evidence of uiros being a Gaulish word! It appears in Gaulish several
personal names - of course, you are completely oblivious to such evidence,
su I can understand your ignorance. BTW, uiros was also present in
Celtiberian, as the Celtib. inscription VIROS VERAMOS attests to (I dare
you to make VERAMOS "supreme" a Latin word!).
>A hypothesis based on what you yourself revealed was a wild wish that
>someone, anyone, would come up with a Gaulish meaning, however strained for
>the inscription has seriously undermined your credibility as a scholar in
>sight. I believe you that you have declared these coins to be Belgic
>without even knowing that their inscription had a Latin meaning, without
>clue to its possible Belgic meaning, as you have confessed, and I can
>understand that you've invested a lot in the assumptions you and no doubt
>others have made without even glancing at languages, and now you're
>embarrassed about it. But you have to deal with that if that's how it is.
[snipped a ton of crap written by Vyvyan]
Now you are just being insulting - and without cause. John is a
well-respected scholar, and is utterly undeserving of such attacks.
- Chris Gwinn
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com