> >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
>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
>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
> > 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
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
>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
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??!!
> > 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.
> > >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
> > 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
> > 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
>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
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?
>appalling that you seem to be considering the issue of possible
>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
>This astounds me. It really doesn't show.
Nothing shows to you, because you are blind to anything that doesn't suit
> > >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
- Chris Gwinn
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.