If multiple words share every similarity except a subtle stressing of syllables, that is a major clue that those words share or once shared common contextual meaning.

No, it isn’t, Richard. That is almost always indicative of unrelated etymologies producing the homology. That’s why real linguists need more evidence than that to reach such a conclusion, so acting like you recommend instead is crank; and when there is abundant evidence against that conclusion, and you still act like this, we are then not just dealing with cranks, but grifters—outright liars.

As documented, these have completely unrelated histories and etymologies. Their homology cannot convey common meaning at all. It could convey an audible pun, but there has to be an actual pun being made, and that is not the claim being made here. So pretending it is is just more lies.

Why all the lying?

It is curious how people feel the need to actually publish lies like this. Like, you didn’t just think all these false things. You needed someone to hear them. Why? What’s your pathology?

The actual article has a perfectly sensible introduction/backstory section, a methodology section, five sections of detailed, evidence-based refutations of specific claims people are being convinced by even though they are fabricated lies generated by pseudomethodologies, and the world needs to be aware of this lest they be conned, and then a reasonably concise conclusion summarizing all this.

You have completely failed to describe the actual article you are commenting on, and instead filled your sentences with ad hominem, well poisoning, straw men, and lies of commission and omission.

Why?

If multiple words share every similarity except a subtle stressing of syllables, that is a major clue that those words share or once shared common contextual meaning. Not always, but dismissing the connection outright is not good science.

Are you 13 years old? Do you expect your audience to have the intellectual rigor of a child? This read more like a toxic exploration of the tortured mind of the author, and much less a critique of Hillman.

Then when we get to the actual “debunking” section you just lazily cite one Christian-influenced mainstream authority source for everything. Really quite embarrassing – I don’t expect any serious people who are simply looking for the truth to take you seriously. No wonder Hillman refused a debate, this is low brow.

I don’t understand why you sent two comments. And burned hundreds of words to just convolutedly say I was right. You could have just done this in two sentences.

Yes, good catch, 2.86 was the mummies. I transposed the wrong cite. The relevant one is the one I linked to.

“Cloth” is a material. Not a bandage. Bandages can be made of that “cloth.” But when it’s just the cloth alone, it refers to a sheet of the cloth (like for wrapping a mummy), not a small bandage.

Just as I said. So all this wheelspinning and we’re right back to what my article said in the first place.

There’s a lesson there.

Also an addition for clarity (addition to my currently unpublished reply -link-
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/37056#comment-44035 )

Your first reply to me is labeled Herodotus 2.86 but the hyperlink it’s attached to actually links to Hdt. 7.181 (my reply to you copies this label and link mistake)

The line you referenced: σινδόνος βυσσίνης τελαμῶσι κατειλίσσοντες is from Hdt. 7.181 (not Herodotus 2.86)

In Herodotus 2.86 it reads:  σῶμα σινδόνος βυσσίνης τελαμῶσι κατατετμημένοισι
–
(7.181) is a wrapped wound with some kind of ointment.
(2.86) is a wrapped mummy.

Hdt.7.181https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0016,001:7:181&lang=original

Hdt.2.86:https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0016,001:2:86&lang=original

Again, I do see the word for bandage separate from the material used as the bandage, (in both cases!) that part I get. (Thank you)

Anyways, there was some confusion there from that incorrect link label combination and then I used that in my response, which correctly should be 7.181

(if publishing, please include this for clarity, since the time to edit my reply is lapsed) – honest mistake and then reuse of a digital technical mistake on both our parts.

And again a humble (and hopefully final final, Goodbye)

So, then I have a question. I’m just asking a question. I know nothing, and made and am making no claims…

Original post I said nothing, at all (I added no comment or statement) and brought it directly to you, a very confusing ‘to me’ juxtaposition -that didn’t work (well it worked but I got chewed up thinking saying less is better). So this time I’ll preface it.

This is a question. I’m confused.

From your response, show me what I’m doing wrong. I’m not joking or being facetious when I say that I am less than an amateur.

This is a question, don’t bite my head off. I don’t know how any of this works.

Hope that will suffice.

You said in your response:

“””The only example given makes this clear: Herodotus 2.86, which reads σινδόνος βυσσίνης τελαμῶσι κατειλίσσοντες, “wrapped with large straps made of sindôn.”

Notice that does not say sindôn “means” bandage. It is there a word describing the material that the bandage was made of, not the bandage itself; the bandage itself is there called a τελαμών, “a broad linen bandage,” meaning something large enough to carry things (like a sling or body). So even the bandage there described is the wrong one for Ammon’s argument;””” (in reference to Herodotus 2.86)

-I looked at Herodotus 2.86 (and it’s not used in the context of a sling or carrying) – it appears to be a wrapping or binding of wounds in combination with an application of myrrh (what I would consider a bandage in the modern sense of the English usage) (Now you accused me of not looking, so what did I do wrong here??? I’m so so so confused….)

Then after your response I looked up τελαμών in the LSJ (and the 1st definition is exactly as you described but 2nd definition is: broad linen bandage for wounds) – so I’m even more confused now trying to understand your response (I’ve got my head bit off and I’m confused)…

I’m so bad at this I can’t even understand half of your response to me, so yeah, I’m less than an amateur and am very happy to admit that. (and after this I don’t think I ever want to look at this stuff ever again -and thank you for that, I need reasons to use my time better, it’s a favor you did that you probably won’t understand, but a very sincere thank you is in order)

Your other point of contention (“Notice that does not say sindôn “means” bandage. It is there a word describing the material that the bandage was made of, not the bandage itself;”) – is perfectly understandable and APPRECIATED!! Thank you for that. That part I get. It’s the other part of your response that I don’t get, at all.

Best to you, a further response or not (I’m sure you have better things to do than to talk to me). Hoping not to get lynched here, but given my life experience I should know better than that by now. [I’ll try to add this to maybe assist with defending my imminent decapitation, I don’t want to respond to your next response, I’m not trying to have an long or endless back and forth. I’d really rather give you the final word and then never look at anything Greek or anything to do with religion ever again] – best to you, good luck in whatever you do and a friendly Goodbye. – (insert polite waving goodbye emoji here)

Damien, I didn’t make the amateur mistake here. You did. You are the one acting irresponsibly. I responsibly corrected you.

Maybe your ego prevents your admitting this so you have to falsely claim I’m the one who made the mistake that needs correcting, but I can’t help that. You have to fix yourself. I am showing you how to behave responsibly even as an amateur. Follow my advice. Or continue to be the butt of the same rebuke. Your call.

I am less than an amateur. I want Ammon debunked. I have not seen one ‘debunk’ that satisfies.

There’s always a hole. (maybe it’s just a hole for amateurs to fall in but never the less, a hole.)

From someone who knows nothing it’s pretty crazy to see an expert make such a crisp and final statement and just poking around the same dictionary the same expert provided in the same article and come up with such a weird find in said lexicon/dictionary.

From a less than amateur perspective, you might take some of your own advice on responsibility.

Love your work. Not sure I like you now though, lol. #$%@