I weighed into state that there is indeed a method forI had earlier quoted from the TWOT entry including its own reference to TDNT. Then I mentioned BDB and K-B. A reasonable set of authorities, I think.
distinguishing cognates from loanwords, rather than the
all-or-nothing approach that seems to be being argued
in other messages in the thread.
I agree that, in a thread discussion such as this, citing
the relevant authorities is sufficient to shift the onus
on the one challenging the scholarly consensus. In my own
defence, I must have missed the post where you did exactly
that!
Just because there is a "consensus", that does not make itAbsolutely! But I didn't say the analysis had only be done more than a century ago, just that it was first done then. HALOT (K-B) cite references in this etymology:
true. It may be worthwhile to follow up the cites and re-
evaluate the analysis behind the commonly accepted result,
particularly if it had gone unchallenged for a century.
Methods and assumptions do change, after all, so the analysis
that produced the result may no longer be acceptable today. Sometimes, it may even turn out that no analysis had in
fact been done originally.
Please be sure that I am not suggesting that the responsibilityWell, I just did some of it. Let any remaining challengers take it further.
for this following-up be imposed on you, Peter. You did your
part. Let the challenger, if he is still interested, do his.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.