Continuing with Mitterer

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Proto-IE or Sprachbund? Dialogue with Josef G. Mitterer · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Indo-European Branches for I and II p. Plural, Pronouns · back to Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: An Anti-Christian Bumped in On My Dialogue with Mitterer, Starting with a Red Flag · Continuing with Mitterer · More Mitterer · Mitterer isn't tired, nor am I

I

27.II.2024

Josef G. Mitterer

Okay, so let’s continue:

N = N ние = noi, V = V вие = voi, T = T те = αυτοί

Okay, but what do you want to say with that? N < *nos and V < *u̯os are inherited from Proto-Indo-European, and the T element in те and αυτοί most probably goes back to the same determiner *so/*to, so I don’t see in which sense a Sprachbund explanation could be useful or convincing in that context.

Would you bring Julius Caesar and Alcuin of York in contact with it?

Yes, of course, even if with the necessary caution. However, would you bring Hesiod and Ovid into contact with historical linguistics (apart from Ovid’s “etymological work”, which can certainly be discussed from a linguistic point of view, as well as the linguistic puns in the Bible)? I admit that there are books in the Bible that have a historical relevance, but certainly not those in which God appears.

The fact that the explanation is needed, proves that the hypothesis "IE metagroup arose by PIE proto-language" is not fully proven, on this side of the equation, namely third persons in or not in -T (and cognates).

Of course, yes. However, it’s very plausible to assume that final /-t/ was simply dropped in certain languages. By no means the absence of final /-t/ is a proof, and not even a good argument, that the relevant verbal forms derive from different proto-forms. All languages whose history is documented show cases like that.

The 25 % similarity is below what we have between an undoubted case of Sprachbund paired languages, Persian and Arabic.

However:

1. as I said, the lexicon is the least stable part of the linguistic system and
2. the relevant part of the lexicon is basic vocabulary

"the Romance languages have been influenced by Latin for most of their history and thus “held together” in a certain sense."

Which illustrates the potential of Sprachbünder. I think the example with 70 % similarity is Romanian ... which was not so held together.

No, Romance languages are not the descendants of a Sprachbund, but of a single language. Everything that was “held together” had already existed in the language, while in a Sprachbund the common traits would be introduced secondarily — and in the case of pre-literary languages there was definitely no phenomenon like the learnt words in Romance languages.

How do we know that Middle English loss of cases is a result of Anglo-Saxon contact with Norse? We don't, but it's a clear option, since in both cases, the case systems were different, in N[orse]—A[nglo]S[axon] in endings, in P[ersian]—A[rabic] in syntax.

Well, I also think substrate or adstrate theories like those are pretty speculative. If we presume a language-contact phenomenon in English and Persian, why we don’t in Romance?

"as for the lexicon, again, it doesn’t affect the very basic vocabulary"

Can you document that? I couldn't read a Swadesh list in Arabic script if my life depended on it.

I don’t really understand your argument, but if you look, for instance, on the numbers or words like ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘daughter’, ‘brother’, ‘sister’ etc., Persian is still “very Indo-European”, it also retained words like *h₁ék̑u̯os (> asb ‘horse’) which got lost in many modern IE languages.

"What do you conclude from this?"

That the idea "basic vocabulary doesn't change" doesn't fit, and especially not with a PIE hypothesis.

I really don’t think so. Of course, it isn’t completely stable (as also your example with kinship terms proves), but there’s a set of words which is extremely stable in almost all IE languages — and the “exceptions” (like Latin fīlia/fīlius, Greek ἀδελφός/ἀδελφή etc.) don’t really constitute a problem for PIE, for

1. we know the same phenomenon in languages which definitely descend from the same ancestor (cf. hermano vs. fratello, nonno vs. abuelo vs. grand-père etc.),
2. in most cases, the relevant words are inherited, even though with a different meaning or they got lost secondarily, cf. φράτηρ/σέσορ in Greek, futír in Oscan etc.

So I’d say these facts are even a very good argument against a Sprachbund explanation.

Which brings me to the fact that the weak stem series doesn't.

Yeah, but it’s most probably secondary. Also, for instance, the conditional(s) and the future tense in Romance languages are secondary, the difference is that in the case of Romance we can retrace the development very well.

And "obscured" in Sanskrit = not proven.

Well, the merger of *e *o *a, *ē *ō *ā in Sanskrit is well-proven, and the consequences on the ablaut system are obvious.

When a thing is possible but not proven, and another thing is possible but not proven, is the default the Academic consensus, or is the default the weaker claim?

The Academic consensus, obviously, yet not because of “ipse dixit”, but because it’s by far more plausible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Okay, but what do you want to say with that? N < *nos and V < *u̯os are inherited from Proto-Indo-European"

In a very convoluted way, leaving Germanic free to start "N" with a W / V, and more than just Germanic to start "V" with a Y / J instead. I read a paper in the early 90's explaining it, and it was very convoluted. It had been written in the 80’s.

"so I don’t see in which sense a Sprachbund explanation could be useful or convincing in that context."

The thing is, in each Sprachbund, there are no N =/= N or V =/= V. I here include areas where larger monolingual areas border each other (counting Germanic, Baltic etc as "one language"). Prior obviously to modern times when Germanic and Romance have been bordering each other.

"I admit that there are books in the Bible that have a historical relevance, but certainly not those in which God appears."

That's not a difference primarily on linguistics, but on religion and history.

"Of course, yes. However, it’s very plausible to assume that final /-t/ was simply dropped in certain languages. By no means the absence of final /-t/ is a proof, and not even a good argument, that the relevant verbal forms derive from different proto-forms."

I consider the explanations equivalent. Finnish, if you remember, in III sg has just a prolongation of the vowel.

"the relevant part of the lexicon is basic vocabulary"

The basic vocabulary can be borrowed as well. Plus, when it comes to English and Russian, it's not just 25 % overall, but even on a Swadesh list.

"No, Romance languages are not the descendants of a Sprachbund, but of a single language."

Inexact. Western Romance languages, most specifically those who were early on culturally relevant, early written down, have TWO influences from Latin : as Proto-Language, but also as Superstrate Language. The languages that use Latin as a Superstrate language are both Romance and Germanic, B U T ... not Romanian. It lost Classic or Medieval Latin very early on and had Bulgarian as Superstrate language instead.

"while in a Sprachbund the common traits would be introduced secondarily"

No, common preservations and innovations are also actually Sprachbund phenomena.

"If we presume a language-contact phenomenon in English and Persian, why we don’t in Romance?"

But we very much do presume it in Romance languages like French, Provençal, Portuguese and Spanish, not forgetting Italian. Contact phenomena between them, and between each and Latin.

"but if you look, for instance, on the numbers or words like ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘daughter’, ‘brother’, ‘sister’ etc., Persian is still “very Indo-European”, it also retained words like *h₁ék̑u̯os (> asb ‘horse’) which got lost in many modern IE languages."

Numbers are a very clear thing in all IE languages. How many of the six close relations are IE in Persian? All except son?

"and the “exceptions” (like Latin fīlia/fīlius, Greek ἀδελφός/ἀδελφή etc.) don’t really constitute a problem for PIE,"

They are indeed not disproof, but they are lack of proof.

The "exceptions" are so common that, there is ONE language family, that has all six, that being Germanic. Hittite has Attas instead of Father, and Gothic shares this ... also with Turkic ones. However, Gothic also has “fadar” in the sense of daddy (the one instance in Wulfila’s Bible where the word occurs being St. Paul’s “Abba, father” …)

"these facts are even a very good argument against a Sprachbund explanation."

You are forgetting the difference between PIE remaining possible and PIE being strongly proven. Or, between PIE being possible and Sprachbund impossible.

"Well, the merger of *e *o *a, *ē *ō *ā in Sanskrit is well-proven, and the consequences on the ablaut system are obvious."

What exact consequences of the specifically "IE" Ablaut system are despite this merger so obvious in Sanskrit, that it cannot be a third independent Ablaut system, like IE from Semitic is supposed to be? The main Ablaut stages in Sanskrit would be different lengthenings and shortenings. Any liquid, you have zero stage, short stage and long stage. For instance, i, e, ai. While the basic function of the IE system is zero stage, E stage and O stage.

"but because it’s by far more plausible."

Not if you look for the plausibilities on the other side. Which again poses the question, is the weaker claim or the consensus claim the default, accepted until disproven?

EDIT, missed one:

“in the case of pre-literary languages there was definitely no phenomenon like the learnt words in Romance languages.”

So, a superstrate language absolutely has to be a written one? I think Rromani functions as a superstrate language between different Rromanis, giving for instance “Chey” to both Spanish Calé and to Swedish Tattar-språk. (It means “girl” or “girl-friend” or “fiancé”).

EDIT, missed another one:

“Yeah, but it’s most probably secondary.”

And the Genitive plural in -E in Gothic too?

Now, for weak forms BOTH in verbs AND in case forms, we actually seem to have the most productive way of forming pasts and cases being other than common IE.

Note, a weak noun in the singular in Germanic is pretty close to the French two case system. French is the most Germanicised Romance language.

By contrast, the Romance future and conditional are not just secondary, but each has a rival, conditionals in past subjunctives, futures in presents (especially with adverbials for future time) or circumlocutions. Also, the Romance conditional is a by-product of the Romance future, which came into existence because the Latin future collided with a more important tense, the past or perfect.

EDIT : this continuation will be published on March 5th …

28.II.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Btw, I think you misunderstood my point about Caesar and Alcuin.

In the language history of Tours, Caesar is responsible for making Latin an everyday language instead of a foreign one, and Alcuin is making ecclesiastical Latin a foreign one instead of an everyday one, thereby triggering a process that separates French from Latin within a century.

I do not refer to their writings as to their views on language history.

Similarily, I accept the Tower of Babel, and God’s final dealing with it, as an act consequential to language history. Later on in Abraham’s time, languages as different as Sumerian, Akkadian (yes, very different), Greek / Pre-Greek / Pre-Indo-European version of Greek, all existed. If the languages had developed from the one on the Ark, we would not expect them to have been by then more different than Icelandic from Danish (also 1000 years or a bit less of language separation).

Other historic event, relevant for Sprachbünder, did you know that in Mycenaean times, there were Mycenaeans in Terramare, and also a trade route going from Terramare all the way up to Denmark?

Laetare Sunday

10.III.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mr. Mitterer, were you involved in asking sth like a disruption or (from his, perhaps if so, your p o v) correction from Thomas Saldana over my bringing up the Tower of Babel ?

He kind of pretended it was his “duty” to do so, it wasn’t any duty to me, I’d like to know if he was at least moderately correct in thinking he did you a favour? Here is our dailogue, where this came up:

An Anti-Christian Bumped in On My Dialogue with Mitterer, Starting with a Red Flag

Josef G. Mitterer

I’ve got nothing to do with his posts, and I didn't even know the user before he commented on your comments. However, I substantially share his point of view, even though I think my argumentation would be different.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you for the info.

You have at least been far more polite!

II

Thu 14.III.2024

Josef G. Mitterer

Besides, so far I have always been on the defensive and have responded to every argument, no matter how specific, even if I sometimes didn’t understand how it was an argument in favour of a IE Sprachbund. However, I wonder what a Sprachbund hypothesis can explain. In fact, I’d say that the PIE reconstruction can explain almost everything, while the IE Sprachbund hypothesis can explain almost nothing (— right?), so why discuss it? There’s no point in discussing it because it’s “possible”. It’s “possible” that Alcuin was born in 740 instead of 735; it’s possible that Mona Lisa was not painted by da Vinci etc. However, we don’t usually discuss these questions. Should we?

What is more, I have the impression you support the Sprachbund hypothesis in order to harmonise artificially the linguistic facts with the Bible, instead of drawing conclusions from the linguistic material, as linguistics does. That reminds me not only of Arnold Wadler’s Der Turm von Babel, but also of other “forced” modifications or hardly tenable interpretations of facts.

Fri 15.III.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“In fact, I’d say that the PIE reconstruction can explain almost everything, while the IE Sprachbund hypothesis can explain almost nothing (— right?),”

Trubetskoy : wrong.
Me : wrong.

“It’s “possible” that Alcuin was born in 740 instead of 735; it’s possible that Mona Lisa was not painted by da Vinci etc.”

Those are affairs of documented history. By the way, given the state of records, if we can pin it down to 740 to the exclusion 735, we are not incredibly lucky, but we are still somewhat lucky.

PIE behind Germanic, Slavic and Greek is not documented. Sprachbund involving Germanic, Slavic and Greek (prior to the AD’s) is not documented. The things that are documented are:

• similarities well beyond the possibility of chance coincidence
• and well below the similarities in for instance Slavic or Hellenic languages
• and as far as vocabulary is concerned (including very basic such, including in a Swadesh list) below what is known in documented Sprachbünder.

“in order to harmonise artificially the linguistic facts with the Bible, instead of drawing conclusions from the linguistic material, as linguistics does.”

As I’ve reminded you, linguistics is not content with concluding from linguistic material only, to the exclusion of historic fact.

Linguistics is not in a vacuum. You may disagree that Biblical history is historically accurate, but you cannot argue a linguist who disagrees with you on that should ignore what he considers as historically accurate to the privilege of linguistics only.

Which, again, as said, does not univocally support PIE over Sprachbund.

Josef G. Mitterer

I was only referring to the plausibilities. Documents can be forged, numbers can be misread or copied incorrectly; and something which is not directly documented can still be extremely plausible. In both cases there is lack of absolute certainty, in spite of extremely high plausibility.

PIE reconstruction can answer a million questions, I don’t see any question that could be answered by a Sprachbund hypothesis. The only thing that can be done from this point of view is to point out a few individual gaps, which —however— are not already an argument in favour of an IE Sprachbund.

As I’ve reminded you, linguistics is not content with concluding from linguistic material only, to the exclusion of historic fact.

That’s absolutely true, of course. Already the eventful history of Sicily is enough of an example. However,

1. there are things we know very well and things we don’t know well at all. We know well who lived in Sicily (in order to stay with the example) over the last two and a half millennia thanks to a wide range of different sources: written documents, archaeological discoveries, ancient buildings, cultural remnants etc. That’s why it’s reasonable to take history into account.
2. Yet I say to take into account, not to subject the linguistic investigation to historic facts (such as: “the Phoenicians lived in Sicily, so there must be signs of Phoenician influence in Sicilian”). Historical studies and linguistics complement each other: language material can provide historical insights, and historical facts can facilitate the interpretation of language material.
3. Mythology and historiography are not the same (even if, of course, in many Ancient authors historiography can’t be separated from mythography). Whenever Athena, Astarte, Mars, Yahweh or Anubis act in a story, there’s hardly a reason to read that as “history”. In any case, there’s an incredibly enormous gap between these myths and the historical sources I mentioned in #1.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I take this one as your real proton pseudos:

“Whenever Athena, Astarte, Mars, Yahweh or Anubis act in a story, there’s hardly a reason to read that as “history”.”

Even when the false gods act, it’s a question of bad interpretation, not of overall bad history.

Obviously, there is no question of bad history when the true God acts.

And, as obviously, that consideration is not one you have gained from linguistics, but from an overall world view for which linguistics is no guarantee at all.

I counter:

1. Genesis 11 is true history (and archaeologically discovered by Klaus Schmidt, best known as Göbekli Tepe);
2. for Gomer, Javan, Madan, Semite Lud, we expect different languages;
3. it takes longer time for all of them to change their language into one and then separate it, than for them to start with different languages and approach each other’s with a Sprachbund;
4. between 2556 BC and emergence of Hittite and Mycenaean Greek and Mitanni about a millennium later, there is time for a Sprachbund
5. the Pit Grave or Yamna culture is dated to 3300 BC, at its oldest, this is just in Abraham’s time or a bit after (it’s after 1935 BC, for which the carbon date is 3500 BC)
6. so for the Yamna culture to provide the Ursprache is even worse as it leaves about 500 years prior to Mycenaean Greek and Hittite.

Josef G. Mitterer

Even when the false gods act […]. Obviously, there is no question of bad history when the true God acts.

What if I say the Greek gods are the true gods and “the” monotheist God (who, by the way, has a polytheist history) is a false god?

And, as obviously, that consideration is not one you have gained from linguistics, but from an overall world view for which linguistics is no guarantee at all.

True. There’s only a small overlap.

Genesis 11 is true history (and archaeologically discovered by Klaus Schmidt, best known as Göbekli Tepe);

No archaeologist can “discover” that “the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, ‘If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.’” — If the Babylonians really did build a tower and it collapsed, that part alone is history. “God” has as little to do with it as the (effectively existing) pale rocks of the Dolomites have to do with the dwarves stretching the moonlight over them (as the Ladin legend says). I also know that Rome exists, but that doesn’t make me believe that Virgil’s Aeneid is history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

An archaeologist can however discover that …

• there is a place that’s West of the purported landing place (i e of the mountains of Armenia)
• that before it, there is a script or similar that’s the same from Indonesia to France (Genevieve von Petzinger’s 32 symbols)
• that after it, scripts are different from each other
• that “they ceased to build the city” (right there, i e they abandoned the city scape).

On top of that, the symbols found in Göbekli Tepe have world wide ties, like a lying figure 8 found in Australia or a “bird man” found in Polynesia. Another item I’d expect for Babel.

The Aeneid contains an obvious anachronism which is not history, i e contemporaneity of fall of Troy with founding of Carthage.

Livy takes the events of it as history, at least major events leading up to Alba Longa.

So, I take it the Aeneid is at least part history (plus obviously part anachronism and part dramatisation / poetic embellishment). That’s how the ancients took it, St. Augustine agreed (if you know the beginning of City of God), so that’s good enough for me.

“What if I say the Greek gods are the true gods and “the” monotheist God (who, by the way, has a polytheist history) is a false god?”

Wouldn’t make the believability of Greek myths less great.

I think the best way to decide is to take both Greek myth and Biblical history as historic (except where they are in conflict) and then see which of the two has a better claim of historically attested divinity.

Josef G. Mitterer

Landing place?

As for the 32 symbols, I had never heard of them, but in any case I wouldn’t associate them with an individual language. After all it’s symbols, it’s only an interpretation to call them a script. Quite the contrary: the interpretations I’ve just read of rather associate every symbol with one individual “meaning”, not with words. What is more, if, for instance, the negative hand meant ‘I was here’, it’s even less plausible to associate it with individual language material. Besides, and that also goes for the signs of Göbekli Tepe, there’s not an unlimited set of plausible signs: it’s obvious that you’ll either have abstractions of concrete objects or geometric signs.

Besides, there are also structural arguments against the idea of a stable (?) “original language”.

The Aeneid contains an obvious anachronism

Yet there are many anachronisms in the Bible, too, also in Genesis. The entire idea of a monotheist God is contradicting and unplausible (while I don’t even know in which kind of God you believe, it differs substantially from believer to believer), and most probably only understandable from the perspective and the horizon of back then.

I think the best way to decide is to take both Greek myth and Biblical history as historic (except where they are in conflict) and then see which of the two has a better claim of historically attested divinity.

I appreciate the sobriety of your reasoning, but

1. why would the Greeks tell about gods who never existed, while the Hebrews tell about a God who effectively existed? Isn’t it much more reasonable to believe none of them ever existed?
2. the Yahweh God of the Bible is obviously the last remaining one of a previous pantheon, through an intermediate stage of “polyyahwism”.
3. myths can be interpreted in many different ways (with an aetiological approach, considering them manifestations of the collective unconscious, pointing out there social value etc). I do think most of them are way more plausible than believing they are actually true.

Sat 16.III.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Landing place?”

And the ark rested in the seventh month, the seven and twentieth day of the month, upon the mountains of Armenia.

“Quite the contrary: the interpretations I’ve just read of rather associate every symbol with one individual “meaning”, not with words.”

I have not heard of any tests on how my theory would work out.

Like the lineage “Japheth, Gomer, Ascenez” abbreviated “JGA” …

“Besides, and that also goes for the signs of Göbekli Tepe,”

Note, they are clearly not a script.

A lying down 8, like an oval with the long axis horizontal and cut in half by a vertical stroke, is pretty rare.

The birdman gets it’s meaning from the Göbekli Tepe area if we go forward “a few millennia” (really just a century) to Çatal Höyyük and see stick figure men lying without heads and vultures on top. It’s highly rare. The Polynesian identity of the figure and the Andine worship of Condors as punishers both tie in with death penalties or human sacrifice under Nimrod, accompanied by vultures feasting on headless bodies.

“there’s not an unlimited set of plausible signs: it’s obvious that you’ll either have abstractions of concrete objects or geometric signs.”

And it is still very conspicuous they are the same 32 signs all over.

“Besides, there are also structural arguments against the idea of a stable (?) “original language”.”

Language would change? Sure. In 500 years from the Flood, it would not change to mutually unintelligible let alone clearly unrelated languages like Sumerian and Elamite and Akkadian. Not even in 1000 years.

“Yet there are many anachronisms in the Bible, too, also in Genesis.”

I don’t think that’s the case.

“The entire idea of a monotheist God is contradicting and unplausible”

Your assessment, not that of St. Thomas Aquinas. AND not the least related to the question of anachronisms.

Let’s take an educated guess about why you believe that. It’s a combination of a) archaeology with b) carbon dates. First of all, prior to the temple, the monotheistic worship would have left no or very little archaeological evidence. Second, the carbon dates don’t show a history timeline identic to that of the Bible, but it clearly can do so if a rise in carbon levels from the Flood is presumed. To get back to Göbekli Tepe … it’s not just the right direction of Armenia to be the Babel of Genesis 11, it’s also the right place in time, if it ended when Peleg was born 401 after the Flood / 2556 BC, it was around 50 pmC, accounting for the carbon date 8000 BC (it seems the current carbon dates for GT are 9500 — 8000 BC).

The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html

Now as to your final objections.

1. Your line of thought is that of Atheism, and it also presumes that “mythology” is primarily about gods. While gods are seen as active, the narrative is mainly centred on events visible to human observers, if they happened, and nearly always they are presumed to have happened as part of local or regional history.
2. Your reconstruction is obviously NOT in the game of “take each” (as it stands) “as history and then see which is more probably a real divine presence” … it’s once again a question begging Atheist argument.
3. The problem is, your “probability” is based on Atheism, and prior to that Puritanism, Enlightenment of Kant dependent on anti-legend attitudes of Calvin. The Greeks and Romans clearly took their myths at what seems to be face value as history. Have you read Plutarch’s parallell lives? He parallells Romulus and Theseus, argues that Romulus is the earliest historic, Theseus the latest mythological material. He then proceeds to rationalise Theseus to get the real history … so he believed Theseus existed. And his distinction between myth and history is taken from his philosophy, which did not allow the holy gods to interact that way with men, and also did not allow them to be often enough demons, which I think very likely they actually were. Their sentiment was not shared by all, Eratosthenes had no problem considering Heraclides as descended from Hercules, I presume, and also not in believing in the Trojan War, and Herodotus starts his histories with the Greek and Persian versions of the Trojan War.

Josef G. Mitterer

Well, as for your initial statement, I’d say that both your Sprachbund arguments and your Babel arguments are extremely speculative and may be enough to nurture doubts on the communis opinio in linguistics, anthropology, archaeology etc., but they are not convincing. Besides, I’m not an anthropologist, archaeologist or historian, but from what I know of linguistics (and objections or “alternatives” to it from outside) I tend to believe that specialists who have studied their field and have been working on it over years or decades are more reliable than laymen, who often might know a lot (if they do, in case of pseudo-etymology it’s very often not the case), but lack the global vision or insight in neighbouring fields.

“Yet there are many anachronisms in the Bible, too, also in Genesis.”

Where to start? For instance, in Genesis 7,2, God tells Noah to “Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate”. However, at that point the distinction between clan and unclean animals had not been mentioned. And actually it was only in Genesis 9,3 that God said: “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you.” That’s only one example. Then there’s already the fact there are two different creation myths, with different chronologies.

As for Thomas Aquinas, Plutarch etc., these guys were definitely intelligent, but they were limited to their time’s horizon of knowledge. Etymology, for instance, had been a matter of speculation and free associations for more than two millennia, until the historical-comparative method was introduced. The greatest genius would not have been able to compile a reasonably correct etymological dictionary in antiquity, whereas today any person of average intelligence can reconstruct reasonable etymologies, taking into account the sound laws.

Let’s take an educated guess about why you believe that. It’s a combination of a) archaeology with b) carbon dates.

They only give me additional arguments, but my atheism is substantially based on rational considerations, rather than on material proofs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I tend to believe that specialists who have studied their field and have been working on it over years or decades are more reliable than laymen, who often might know a lot (if they do, in case of pseudo-etymology it’s very often not the case), but lack the global vision or insight in neighbouring fields."

I actually specialise in having a global vision differing from Evolutionist mainstream and also in ignoring no "neighbouring fields" — or as few as possible.

Now, for anachronisms. My beef in mentioning the one in the Aeneid, it was not really to make a comparison how much more reliable the Bible is (though thanks to God’s inspiration it actually is that), it was that, except for that anachronism, I actually tend to believe the Aeneid as history. I’m on the fence whether the son-in-law of Latinus was posterior to the Trojan war or the Dido story was an embellishment, or why not both. But apart from that, I tend to believe the Aeneid. It could be about two different persons Aeneas, one founder of Aineia, in the time of the Trojan war, and another one who came to Italy.

"For instance, in Genesis 7,2, God tells Noah to “Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate”. However, at that point the distinction between clan and unclean animals had not been mentioned.'

Here is the Haydock comment:

GENESIS - Chapter 7
https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id334.html

Ver. 2. Of all clean. The distinction of clean and unclean beasts, appears to have been made before the law of Moses, which was not promulgated till the year of the world 2514. (Challoner). — Clean: not according to the law of Moses, which was not yet given, but such as tradition had described — fit for sacrifice; (Menochius) though they might be of the same species as were deemed clean in the law, which ratified the ancient institution. …

"And actually it was only in Genesis 9,3 that God said: “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you.”"

As the Haydock comment indicates, clean beasts had not been food, but sacrifice, before the Flood. Abel sacrificed, doesn't say he ate meat, still less ate meat outside sacrifice.

"the fact there are two different creation myths, with different chronologies."

The panorama and the details of day 6.

"they were limited to their time’s horizon of knowledge."

We are often enough even more limited to our time's ...

"Etymology, for instance, had been a matter of speculation and free associations for more than two millennia, until the historical-comparative method was introduced."

If IE was a Sprachbund, how much etymology is actually settled by X misunderstanding Y from another culture? Is “dizzy” related to “theos” because someone thought the alpha state divine (as Hindus do)? Or is “dizzy” related to “theos” because person A from a proto-Javan, pre-Greek / pre-proto-Greek tribe was in devotion to a divinity and spoke of “theos” while his interlocutor who watched him in alpha state thought he was speaking of his experience?

Blago- (prefix equivalent to eu-) and blogas (= kakos) are related according to sound laws. Capio and have, habeo and give seem to be related too, in so far as sound laws are concerned. And “siegen” with “ekho, eskhomai” … Are the Semantic shifts from a common heritage, or due to miscommunication in a loose or early stage of a Sprachbund?

"my atheism is substantially based on rational considerations,"

Fine, but in discussions either on language or history, between an atheist and a Christian, perhaps the material proofs are more of a common ground than your own version of "rationality"?

To me, for instance, your rationale for trusting the experts smacks so much of the Atheist actual religion (scientism) that it falls pretty flat to the ground.

But thank you for being candid about basing things on overall world view rather than specific material evidence!

Just as a reminder, the things I referred to St. Thomas or Plutarch about are not of the nature that new discoveries have been probably made by modern experts.