>>17649402
>No. Even Koch recognize it
I'll explain this one more time. Koch is talking about Tartessian which presents special difficulties. The language family isn't known and Koch attempted to decode it. The problem here is you can't just read Tartessian and assume you know what a word means in context. Tartessian hasn't been decoded so he just wanted to consider multiple possibilities.

For languages that are known and understood, there is no possibility of confusing the ploughing words with aryan words. Confusion here means a failure to recognize parts of speech and morphology and a severe absence of basic reading comprehension. None of the languages I deal with are so poorly understood that this is an issue.

>>17649409
Other than the references I provide in my images, the basic reference works I frequently use are Leiden's Indo-European Etymological Dictionary series:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_Etymological_Dictionary

>>17649411
>the Brazilian posts the same table that you spam, why?
Because he's a schizo or troll

>Isn't that suspicious?
Only if you have severe mental deficiencies. Here's the picture again. If you want to go post it on other boards, I can't stop you. That's how 4chan works. Crazy right?

>>17649450
I saw a version of this post before. I don't think you are really taking the time to understand what I'm saying. That's why you don't quote me or give a fuck at all about giving more than a canned response. Again, there's nothing there I have to address. The thread is about a PIE term */h2eri̯o-mṓn/. If you don't have the attention span for this, just drop out.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/his/

Thread:

The Patriarch and Progenitor of the Proto-Indo-Europeans? Part 2