Fallow Deer/A Closer Look

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

<< In a message dated 5/13/01 11:00:09 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
X99Lynx at aol.com writes:
> Someone, a relatively disinterested outsider, might take this alone to
> undermine the idea that there was any necessary connection between the names
> for elk, red deer and fallow deer and any particular types of deer.

In a message dated 5/16/2001 12:00:14 AM, JoatSimeon at aol.com writes:
<<-- any _single_ instance is not conclusive.  The probabilities become
conclusive for all practical purposes when you add together _all_ the
instances. >>

I appreciate that point-of-view.  But understand that I cannot address ALL
the probabilities all at once.  Unfortunately, these statements about animals
can be asserted in one sentence.  But it wouldn't be productive to examine
them critically all in one sentence.  There wouldn't be much point in saying,
no, they don't.

Imagine how you'd feel if I wrote that a computer analysis of 45 plant words,
taken all together, have just pretty much proven that IE originated in the
Levant.  I'm sure you would want to look into the details before you bought
anything.

It seems to me that the fundamental flaw in most of these animal names is the
assumption that they held a single meaning for as much as 3000 years among
peoples who had no writing, no picture books, no schools, no biology
departments and no encyclopedias.   And once their meaning shifted, they're
usefulness in telling us about local fauna loses a lot of weight.  Because if
they shifted once they could have shifted a dozen times.  And because, given
thousands of years, these speakers may have been using the same phonetics,
but talking about something completely different, time and time again.

I know you don't agree with that, but all I ask is that you consider how
someone else might see this as a weakness in the proposition.

Regards,
Steve Long