LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  April 2002

CELTIC-L April 2002

Subject:

Re: Caesar on the Gauls

From:

Christopher Gwinn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:51:48 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (271 lines)

> >In this language, which we
> > have no written records for, but can be reconstructed through careful
> > comparison of its daughter languages,
>
>Theoretically, but no one has ever succeeded in doing it. It is constructed
>of a tenuous tissue of hypothesis not supported by any proven ability to
>predict the reality it pertains to.  As such, it is a fictitious language,
>something like those artist's reconstructions of ancient hominids built
>from
>the inferences of violently conflicting scholarly opinions of conjecturors
>drawing on a pitiful paucity of evidence concerning the implications of
>which unsettled debates and serious controversy remains.


You truly have a pathetic understanding of the state of PIE studies. I
didn't expect anything better of you, though, so par for the course.


>Certainly Latin Vir, German Herr,


Umm...German Herr has NOTHING to do with PIE *wi:ro- - further evidence of
your ignorance.


>Irish fear, your Old Welsh Uiros and Viros

NO!!! GAULISH UIROS!! I thought you said you could read without glasses?!
ONE MORE TIME - GAULISH UIROS, OLD WELSH GUR!!!!.


>are all cognate, but your Wiros is as hypothetical as your
>Proto-Indo->European language and culture.

Gee, tell me something I don't know - I have already stated that PIE
*wi:r-os is a reconstructed, hypothtical form - but that doesn't mean that
it didn't exist!


> > Do you get it now? The coin legend VIROS was recorded at a time when
>Celtic
> > languages still had the old case endings - and it long precedes the Old
> > Irish/Archaic Welsh forms.
>
>Yes.  I had understood your hypothesis. I had agreed that it is a viable
>one. What I said about it was that it was a hypothesis and not better than,
>in fact significantly further-fetched than, the one I presented, as I
>detailed step by step in a previous email.

LOL!! Ask ANY professional linguist - I challenge you to do this - whether
your "hypothesis" is "further-fetched" than mine - I guarantee that you will
be quite shocked by the responses you get.


>  Neither is proved, neither is
>disproved. Both need to be examined in the light of other evidence and
>neither of them has been.  That's what astounds me.  I think it's a serious
>oversight.  Perhaps a blind spot.  Why should you hate me so violently for
>mentioning it?

I don't even know you - and I have no reason whatsoever to hate you - but I
_do_ think that you are not terribly bright, and I think you are very rude -
furthermore, I think you are perhaps misleading and confusing those on this
list that don't know a lot about linguistics - and I find that
reprehensible.

[drivel snipped]

>You can fault me there if you feel the need, but you are still trying to
>prove that your hypothesis is a fact by showing it to be it almost as
>viable
>as mine.

Not "almost" - infinitely more viable than yours.

>All I've proposed is that VIROS might be the Latin Men/soldiers
>(Acc Pl).  For this you attack me.  What have you got to protect from what?

Hunh?? Speak in coherent sentences when addressing me, please.


>I am seriously amazed at your reaction.  Not everyone who disagrees with me
>has gone for my jugular vein like this.


I am not as patient or as nice as others - and I never suffer fools.


> > >Incidentally, did Gildas back-form a hypothetical Uorteporix from
> > > >Vortepori or does it really exist?
> >
> > What are you talking about!!! You really _can't_ read, can you??!!
>Gildas
> > only recorded Uortepori (he was in no position to back-form anything) -
> > linguists reconstruct an earlier form *Uorteporix.
>
>I see, HYPOTHESISERS did.  You mean there wasn't such a form?


No, LINGUISTS - not "hypothesisers". *Uorteporix is not recorded (thus the
*), but a close relative, Uoteporigis (gen. of Uoteporix) _is_ recorded.


[drivel snipped]


> > >You have to explain why MAN or MAN'S would be on it just as I have to
> > >explain why the word MEN/SOLDIERS (acc) would be on it.
> >
> > LOL!! I have to explain nothing!
>
>I take this to mean that you can't.


Well, you would be wrong, then.



> >This is perfectly normal - go look at any
> > collection of Celtic coin legends for _ample_ examples of names
>appearing
>in
> > the nominative case!
>
>So you are saying that Old Welsh  VIROS, meaning man, is used as a personal
>name on this coin?

GAULISH VIROS!!! NOT OLD WELSH!!!
It could be a personal name - or it could be a title.


>>I then challenge you to find examples of Latin coin
> > legends featuring one word in the accusative plural - go ahead, give us
>your
> > evidence!
>
>VIROS.  VIROSVERAMOS .  But you're the one claiming expertise here.


Umm...Viros Veramos is not from a coin legend! Secondly, if a form is in
dispute and someone asks for other evidence, it is moronic to supply the
same form that it is being disputed.


> > >Don't you get the fact that VIROS was
> > >recorded
> > > > CENTURIES UPON CENTURIES before OIr Fer and OW Gur took form?
>
>
>Recorded?  Other than hypothetically on this coin? I doubt it.
>

Ugghh. Check the Dictionnaire de la Langue Gauloise - check Dialects of
Ancient Gaul - check Altceltischer Sprachschatz - check Thesaurus Linguae
Gallicae  - until them, please stop this nonsense - you are really making
yourself look like a complete idiot.


> > Lord, this is moronic. I don't even know what use there is in trying to
> > argue with such foolishness.
>
>
>I have come to understand that this is you admitting that you haven't
>understood or don't know.  It would be easier for you just to admit it.

No, I both know and understand the various issues here - I think YOU are the
one that has some admitting to do here.


> >All that I can say is WRONG - TRY AGAIN!!
>
>Are you saying that we have got detailed records other than hypothetical
>reconstructions of the prehistoric development of  OIr and OW?


What the hell do you think I have been saying over and over again??


> > AAAGH!!!! I already told you that we have PROOF that uiros existed in
> > Gaulish!! Are you daft, or what?
>
>No you haven't.  You said it existed abundantly as a name

CLEAN THOSE GLASSES!!! I said that we had abundant evidence of it being a
NAME ELEMENT!

>and that you had big mobs of proof which you refused to cite.


Because I don't have the time to waste on you - get the evidence for
yourself!! You've been given the sources.

>Personally, I find it hard to
>believe that any mother would call her child Man, with or without a
>'name-ending', or that anyone would bestow such a name on a child or even a
>man.

Guess what? Uiros/Fer/Gur/etc. in Celtic (as well as the other IE cognates)
also meant "hero". You can't conceive of the fact that someone might have
been given (or taken on) the name "hero"? Well, that's no surprise - you
apparently can conceive of very little.

>But you want me to believe that the Celts did it all the time and that
>we have irrefutable proof of it in reliable and intelligible language
>records 'centuries and centuries' older than the earliest written texts.

AAAGGGH!!! NO!!! We have GAULISH forms containing the word uiros recorded
centuries before the earliest WELSH and IRISH texts!! COULD YOU PLEASE LEARN
TO READ PROPERLY??!!

>Well I don't.

What else is new?

>It is
>appalling that you seem to be considering the issue of possible
>translations
>of these coins for the first time - without ever having done any of the
>simplest forms of linguistic
>research into them or consulted anyone who had, until I made a suggestion
>that pricked you into doing so.

You are so clueless, it is unbelievable. You don't know a damned thing about
me, or what I have or haven't considered, yet you make blatantly stupid
assumpetions about me. You knw what they say about assumptions, don't you?

>Do you really know of no analyses of these inscriptions done by linguists
>more knowledgeable than me or you?

The sources that I have consulted consider the inscription Gaulish - and the
authors are ALL more knowledgable than me - and infinitely more so than you.

>I can continue with my researches into ancient Celtic culture much
>sobered by the knowledge gained from this list that at least in some quite
>influential areas of the field 'the experts' are incompetent.


ROTFLMAO - you can't be serious! You have a seriously distorted view of
reality - what drugs do you take?


> > I guarantee you that I have stuied
> > and know far more about Classical and Vulgar Latin than you ever >could
>hope to.
>
>This astounds me.  It really doesn't show.


Nothing shows to you, because you are blind to anything that doesn't suit
you.


> > >As is the case in so many Latin sentences, 'Verb understood.'
> >
> >
> > Oh really, and what's the "understood" verb?
>
>SOLVERE or PENDERE or NUMERARE, transitive verbs meaning to pay, according
>to my hypothesis.

I will ask you yet again (you seem to be ignoring this challenge, though) -
give examples of Latin inscriptions containing single words in the
accusative plural.

- Chris Gwinn


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2019
December 2018
September 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager