[tied] Re: Vandals
>That's why I offer them here.
> >> [He] is only interested in finding evidence in science
> >> which supports this prejudice.
> > Of course.
> If you were a real scientist, you'd also be interested in
> subjecting your 'theories' to rigorous testing.
> > And it's 'theory'.The view you, George and others represent insists that those sources
> Perhaps; but it most certainly is prejudice, as you have in
> fact acknowledged in connection with some of the off-topic
> (political) threads.
concerning the history of Germanic-speaking peoples which refer to
native traditions should be dismissed out of hand, thus treated
differently from other sources, a prejudice which is ideologically
motivated as can be seen in George's past insistence that I am an
'Odinist'. Since I'm against prejudice, I can't accept that view.
> [...]I did read Popper, but naive falsificationism I haven't heard of
> >> Four of his favourite techniques are :
> >> (1) the reversal of responsibility: i.e. he makes an
> >> unproved assertion and then expects you to disprove it;
> > Popper.
> Absolutely not. Neither Popperism nor naive
> falsificationism (which seems closer to what you actually
> have in mind) says anything about where the onus lies.
before. Do you have a reference or did you just make that up?
> In the real world a 'scientist' who doesn't take someActually, my claim that I just leave the disproving to you guys is
> responsibility for testing his assertions is an
> irresponsible jackass: irresponsible because he's wasting
> everyone's time,
exaggerated; I usually provide reasons why I think something is the case.
> and a jackass because eventually he's bound to be caught in anEverybody commits a blunder every once in a while. I usually admit
> obvious blunder, probably sooner rather than later.
them ("oops"); I don't eg. insist on an interpretation that is based
on a claim which is patently false, like the claim that Lat. 'quidam'
'Prove me wrong' is the crackpot's motto.
I thought it was 'Don't prove me wrong'?
> By the way, George left out at least one: routinelyPlease don't misrepresent me. I sometimes posit words in low register;
> appealing to invisible 'data', justified on the grounds that
> it belonged to an unrecorded 'low' register.
I never call that 'data', they are proposals for earlier forms, and
that is what historical linguistics is about.
> Between your thoroughly unscientific approach and yourI thought your claim was that my 'unscientific approach' consisted in
> refusal to do even the most basic testing of your pet
my 'refusal to do even the most basic testing of your pet
conjectures'? What's gotten between them now?
BTW your critique has an interesting parallel in that of the Catholic
church against Galileo's Dialogues:
> it's impossible either to take you seriously onI understand you. I would be exasperated in your situation too.
> most of your favorite topics or to avoid displaying a
> certain amount of exasperation.
> I do occasionally do your work for you, when it's easy or whenIt is much appreciated.
> something piques my interest,
> but your scientific irresponsibility still pissesIrresponsibility?
> me off, and sometimes it shows.
But I know the feeling, sometimes people say stuff I just know is
wrong, and I can't find a way to disprove it, but then I think that
perhaps the reason is the other guy is right, and I feel much better.
- --- In email@example.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>I just learned (from Kuhn's review of Krahe's book) that adua- is
> > "It is not clear whether the populations which Caesar consider to
> > be Germanic also called themselves that. The Roman historian
> > Tacitus suggests in his De origine et situ Germanorum (98 n.Chr.)
> > [above footnote] that the name came from Caesar himself and only
> > later was taken over by the local population: 'Some assure [...]
> > that more [ancestors] have sprung from this god and that there
> > are thus more original names: Marsi, Gambrivii, Suebi, Vandilii,
> > and that those are the genuine old names; that besides the
> > designation 'Germani' is of recent date and only came about a
> > short time ago, since those who came first across the Rhine and
> > drove off the Gauls and now (are called) Tongeren, then were
> > called Germani ...' Tacitus refers in this passage very clearly
> > to Caesar. In Tacitus' time the territory of the Eburones who had
> > been exterminated by Caesar was inhabited by the Tongeren
> > (Tungri)"
> New proposal: 'Those who came first across the Rhine and drove off
> the Gauls and now (are called) Tungri' and 'then were called
> Germani' are the Cimbri/Teutones. That would counter your objection
> that Caesar knew of a permanent presence (without Ariovistus) of
> the Germani: it is another people, now called Tungri (and living in
> Aduatuci, now Tongern).
another of those Old European (ie. Venetic) roots. The name Tungri
might be from later arrivals: Turingi, who must somehow be (feel)
related to the Cimbi in Aduatuci.