The way I read it, it means that he wants to be anathematized. Again.
A post was split to a new topic: On Prior Names
What’s your basis for labeling the concept of Indo-European languages as meaningless?
Indeed what is your expertise or evidence for rejecting comparative linguistic scholarship entirely?
Do you understand that human identity is complex and that it is not necessarily linked to genetics? Indee, do you understand the complex interrelations of things like generic ancestry, language, culture, society, nationality, ethnicity, and identity?
Or do you think that everything begins and ends with genetic ancestry? If that’s the case, we don’t have a common basis for the exchange of knowledge on this topic.
Really, of the factors I listed above, generic ancestry is probably the weakest factor in determining human identity.
I would say language is the strongest factor. And that is why my comments have focused on language.
There’s no such thing as either “European genetics” or “Asian genetics.” These terms are 100 percent meaningless, unless you strictly define them for a particular purpose. Ultimately, all humans have African genetics.
And there is no definition I am aware of for any purpose under which
is even a coherent claim, let alone wrong.
Genetic was originally a word used by scholars studying languages, as a means for grouping languages and exploring their relationships, and was borrowed by biologists. Occasionally someone mixes up the two meanings with unfortunate consequences.
For what it’s worth, I have a copy of Orrin W. Robinson’s Old English and its Closest Relatives: A Survey of the Earliest Germanic Languages, and the first language discussed is Gothic. The explanations of language families, Indo-European, and the Germanic languages are similar to what one finds in Wikipedia.
As the Troll that bumped this has been Banned, I’m going to leave this one closed.