Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[tied] Re: Vandals

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen
    ... That s why I offer them here. ... The view you, George and others represent insists that those sources concerning the history of Germanic-speaking peoples
    Message 1 of 57 , Sep 1, 2008
      ...
      >
      > >> [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.

      That's why I offer them here.


      > > And it's 'theory'.
      >
      > Perhaps; but it most certainly is prejudice, as you have in
      > fact acknowledged in connection with some of the off-topic
      > (political) threads.

      The view you, George and others represent insists that those sources
      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.


      > [...]
      >
      > >> 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.

      I did read Popper, but naive falsificationism I haven't heard of
      before. Do you have a reference or did you just make that up?

      > In the real world a 'scientist' who doesn't take some
      > responsibility for testing his assertions is an
      > irresponsible jackass: irresponsible because he's wasting
      > everyone's time,

      Actually, my claim that I just leave the disproving to you guys is
      exaggerated; I usually provide reasons why I think something is the case.

      > and a jackass because eventually he's bound to be caught in an
      > obvious blunder, probably sooner rather than later.

      Everybody commits a blunder every once in a while. I usually admit
      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'
      means "all".


      '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: routinely
      > appealing to invisible 'data', justified on the grounds that
      > it belonged to an unrecorded 'low' register.

      Please don't misrepresent me. I sometimes posit words in 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 your
      > refusal to do even the most basic testing of your pet
      > conjectures,

      I thought your claim was that my 'unscientific approach' consisted in
      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:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy


      > it's impossible either to take you seriously on
      > most of your favorite topics or to avoid displaying a
      > certain amount of exasperation.

      I understand you. I would be exasperated in your situation too.

      > I do occasionally do your work for you, when it's easy or when
      > something piques my interest,

      It is much appreciated.

      > but your scientific irresponsibility still pisses
      > me off, and sometimes it shows.

      Irresponsibility?
      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.


      Torsten
    • tgpedersen
      ... I just learned (from Kuhn s review of Krahe s book) that adua- is another of those Old European (ie. Venetic) roots. The name Tungri might be from later
      Message 57 of 57 , Sep 30, 2008
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > "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).
        >
        I just learned (from Kuhn's review of Krahe's book) that adua- is
        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.


        Torsten
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.