Sir = cheese (caseus); sour = kiseo (sour)
Dušan Vukotić
Lat. oxygala (sour milk) is phonetically very similar to the Serbian
word kiseljenje (acidification); according to the Xur-Bel-Gon theory
both of these words (oxygala, kiseljenje) are derived from the same
basis - Xur-Gon-Bel. It means that the earliest forms of kiselo (sour)
and oxygala could have sounded as xur-g-(b)-ljene and that both words
were also related to Latin sorbeo (to suck in, drink, swallow) as well
as Serbian šikljanje (gush).
In this case the two conspicuous phonetic laws are observable:
1. The elision of the sound -r- from the Xur-Gon-Bel basis.
2. A total assimilation of the sound -b- by the following -l-
Consequently, the English word cheese could be compared to the Serbian
adjective kiseo (sour), while English sour could be equated to Serbian
sir (cheese). We can see that the ur-syllable Xur has retained the
sound -r- in the words sir (cheese) and sour (Serb. sirenje curdle*).
There is a Serbian adjective sirov (rude, crude, raw), which is also
derived from the above-mentioned Xur-Gon-Bel basis (Serb. sirovina /
staple, raw material/).
It would be interesting to compare Serbian words sirovina (staple; Xur-
Gon-Bel-Gon) and the noun crpljenje (depletion) and verb crpeti (drain
the liquid from). These words are semantically clearly related to each-
other and they appeared to be akin to Latin exa-cerbo (to make worse;
cf. Serbian is-crpljen exhausted).
*English crude is related to Serbian gruda (clod, clot); cf. Serb. z-
gruda(v)ati (curdle). In addition, Serb. gruda is akin to English hard
and earth.
DV
Anyone - who believes that he can rebut the effectiveness of my Xur-
Bel-Gon theory - is welcome to try his skills!
Dušan Vukotić
No objections? Thanks! :-)
DV
Trond Engen
Why should anyone have objections? Your examples show that you define
effectiveness as amount of output per invested effort. There's no doubt
that your theory is superior to traditional historical linguistics in
that regard.
The interesting question arises when the aspect of quality is added to
your calculations. Will anyone buy?
--
Trond Engen
- non-objective
Harlan Messinger
historical linguistics, were cheesemaking, he'd get the local market to
stock batch after batch of the output of his various misbegotten
experiments, and would consider it a resounding endorsement the one time
shoppers merely left a batch to rot of its own accord rather than
ripping it off the shelf, trampling it while holding their noses, and
torching the place as they had done all the other times.
Joachim Pense
like this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu_marzu>
Harlan Messinger
Ewwww. (Um, er, I guess I *did* eat termites in Belize. Minty and peppery.)
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Hey, if (like me) you didn't read beyond the subject line, you might
have thought "Du$an finally scored 100%!". As far as I can make out
from the authorities, sir really _is_ cognate with sour, and caseus is
from the same root as kiseo (though more closely related to "kvass").
The good old stopped-clock principle is still at work.
Ross Clark
Trond Engen
> On Apr 4, 2:25 am, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
>> Dušan Vukotić skreiv:
>>
>>> On 2 апр, 22:30, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone - who believes that he can rebut the effectiveness of my
>>>> Xur-Bel-Gon theory - is welcome to try his skills!
>>>
>>> No objections? Thanks! :-)
>>
>> Why should anyone have objections? Your examples show that you
>> define effectiveness as amount of output per invested effort.
>> There's no doubt that your theory is superior to traditional
>> historical linguistics in that regard.
>>
>> The interesting question arises when the aspect of quality is added
>> to your calculations. Will anyone buy?
>
> Hey, if (like me) you didn't read beyond the subject line, you might
> have thought "Du$an finally scored 100%!".
Actually I didn't read his first post, and it was exactly that thought
that made me curious enough to read his second.
> As far as I can make out from the authorities, sir really _is_
> cognate with sour, and caseus is from the same root as kiseo (though
> more closely related to "kvass"). The good old stopped-clock
> principle is still at work.
Isn't this rather the monkey-with-a-typewriter principle?
--
Trond Engen
- on the principles of linguistics
Dušan Vukotić
> Actually I didn't read his first post, and it was exactly that thought
> that made me curious enough to read his second.
Just curiosity! A typical monkey's reflection! Do not warry, your
Trendy Engine is surely ready for an instinctive "cage-consideration".
DV
Craoi...@gmail.com
> On 4 ÁÐÒ, 09:18, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
> > Actually I didn't read his first post, and it was exactly that thought
> > that made me curious enough to read his second.
>
> Just curiosity! A typical monkey's reflection!
Douchie, you are a very bad man. Good men would not call other people
monkeys.
Craoi...@gmail.com
Douchie, you are a very bad man.
Dušan Vukotić
> As far as I can make out
> from the authorities, sir really _is_ cognate with sour, and caseus is
> from the same root as kiseo (though more closely related to "kvass").
What a pity Ross that you do not try to use your own brain instead of
consulting "authority" all the time.
Slavic kvas is related to kis- in a similar way as Serbian kiša (rain)
is related to kvašenje (soaking; cf. Russ. квасить/kvasitь make sour).
Of course, if you want to make something sour you have to add water to
it (Serb. kvasiti).
It seems that English wash (OE wascan; Dutch wassen; Ger. waschen) is
akin to Serbian k-vašenje (soaking), and if it was the truth it would
have meant that this English word was not derived from the common root
for water (*wed–) but from *aqua- (Lat. aquaticus).
DV
Dušan Vukotić
You are not a monkey - you are Hog Loony.
DV
Harlan Messinger
> On 4 апр, 02:17, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> As far as I can make out
>> from the authorities, sir really _is_ cognate with sour, and caseus is
>> from the same root as kiseo (though more closely related to "kvass").
>
> What a pity Ross that you do not try to use your own brain instead of
> consulting "authority" all the time.
This from the guy who is perpetually frustrated because no one will
consider him an authority.
Dušan Vukotić
wrote:
I didn't know Ross is so deeply and "perpetually" frustrated?!!!!
DV
Harlan Messinger
> On 4 апр, 13:23, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
>>> On 4 апр, 02:17, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> As far as I can make out
>>>> from the authorities, sir really _is_ cognate with sour, and caseus is
>>>> from the same root as kiseo (though more closely related to "kvass").
>>> What a pity Ross that you do not try to use your own brain instead of
>>> consulting "authority" all the time.
>> This from the guy who is perpetually frustrated because no one will
>> consider him an authority.
>
> I didn't know Ross is so deeply and "perpetually" frustrated?!!!!
>
you. Can't you read?
Craoi...@gmail.com
You are still a very, very bad man.
Dušan Vukotić
OK... You responded to me about Ross' frustration.
DV
Harlan Messinger
Yes, to a comment *FROM* *you*. Are you having trouble with prepositions?
Dušan Vukotić
Not at all... but... are you not willing to _propose_ a certain
treatment for Ross and his "perpetually" frustrated soul?
DV
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Hey, DV, I'm not frustrated, OK?
I use my brain _and_ consult authorities every day. That's how
linguistics is done.
Now stop annoying Harlan and show us some more word-garlands.
Ross Clark
Dušan Vukotić
> I use my brain
I am glad to hear it!
DV
lora...@cs.com
<dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lat. oxygala (sour milk) is phonetically very similar to the Serbian
> word kiseljenje (acidification);
No it isn't.. as explained below...
> according to the Xur-Bel-Gon theory
> both of these words (oxygala, kiseljenje) are derived from the same
> basis - Xur-Gon-Bel.
In which case your theory is wrong.
> It means that the earliest forms of kiselo (sour)
> and oxygala could have sounded as xur-g-(b)-ljene and that both words
> were also related to Latin sorbeo (to suck in, drink, swallow) as well
> as Serbian šikljanje (gush).
No, they are not.
'Kiselis' is a slow cooked compote made of cranberries in Latvian - it
is 'tart' - not 'sour'.
(It is also a traditional (and very nice) Latvian dessert.)
And 'siekals' is 'saliva' in Latvian.
The extrended attribute of 'gushing' could be inferred - but not your
opposite concept of
'absorption'.
> In this case the two conspicuous phonetic laws are observable:
> 1. The elision of the sound -r- from the Xur-Gon-Bel basis.
> 2. A total assimilation of the sound -b- by the following -l-
Yes, of course... "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and
caldron bubble.."
> Consequently, the English word cheese could be compared to the Serbian
> adjective kiseo (sour),
Wrong.
> ..while English sour could be equated to Serbian
> sir (cheese).
No.. again wrong..
Serbian cheese 'sir' can be equated to Latvian 'cheese' - which is
'sirs'..
Neither are related to Engish 'sour'.
'Sour' appears to be derived from some cognate of Latvian 'suuris' -
which means 'sour'. (OED
revisions required)
Latv. 'sirs' is not directly related to Ltv. 'suuris'.
Ltv. 'suuris' is the most primary genetic relative to English 'sour'
that I have been able to find.
(Find a better one if you can)
> We can see that the ur-syllable Xur has retained the
> sound -r- in the words sir (cheese) and sour (Serb. sirenje curdle*).
Maybe *you* can.. but you are special. "Fire burn, and caldron
bubble.."
> There is a Serbian adjective sirov (rude, crude, raw), which is also
> derived from the above-mentioned Xur-Gon-Bel basis (Serb. sirovina /
> staple, raw material/).
>
> It would be interesting to compare Serbian words sirovina (staple; Xur-
> Gon-Bel-Gon) and the noun crpljenje (depletion) and verb crpeti (drain
> the liquid from).
'Sirovino' does not look to not be related to 'crpljenje' or verb
'crpeti' in any way at all.
> These words are semantically clearly related to each-
> other and they appeared to be akin to Latin exa-cerbo (to make worse;
> cf. Serbian is-crpljen exhausted).
1) 'Sirovina' is not related to any other above listed word.
2) 'Exacerbate' does not appear to be related to either 'sirovino' or
to the root 'crpet':
"1582, from L.L. exacerbationem (nom.exacerbatio), from L. exacerbare
"exasperate,
irritate," from ex- "thoroughly" + acerbus "harsh, bitter," from acer
"sharp, keen" (see
acrid). "
What you *may* have been looking for was the Latin 'exactor' - meaning
'impellor'.
But that is not cognate with the Serb. 'crpet' in anyway.
Why? Because the Serb. 'crpet' has to have the same origin as Baltic
Latvian 'krapt' - meaning
'to steal'.
And the closest Latin analog can only be Latin 'corruptio' - meaning
'to steal'.
> *English crude is related to Serbian gruda (clod, clot); cf. Serb. z-
> gruda(v)ati (curdle). In addition, Serb. gruda is akin to English hard
> and earth.
Again you are wrong. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Your industry is applaudable - but your methodology is wretchedly
erroneous... it's extremely bad.
English 'crude' is derived from Latin 'Crudelis' - raw or bloody - not
'granular'.
And 'grain' itself only appears from c.1315 and is related to L.
granum "seed"
The best fit that exists between Latin 'granum' (seed) and medieval
'grain' - and which also encompasses the idea of granularity - is a
root that encompasses meanings of both 'seed' and 'granularity'...
And (unless some Slavic root exists) the only dual-use root that looks
applicable seems to be Baltic 'grauda' - meaning 'seed' and 'grain'.
> DV
> Anyone - who believes that he can rebut the effectiveness of my Xur-
> Bel-Gon theory - is welcome to try his skills!
I think I just did... and it was too easy.
Dušan Vukotić
> On Apr 2, 12:30 pm, Du¹an Vukotiæ
>
> <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Lat. oxygala (sour milk) is phonetically very similar to the Serbian
> > word kiseljenje (acidification);
>
> No it isn't.. as explained below...
>
> > according to the Xur-Bel-Gon theory
> > both of these words (oxygala, kiseljenje) are derived from the same
> > basis - Xur-Gon-Bel.
>
> In which case your theory is wrong.
>
> > It means that the earliest forms of kiselo (sour)
> > and oxygala could have sounded as xur-g-(b)-ljene and that both words
> > were also related to Latin sorbeo (to suck in, drink, swallow) as well
> No, they are not.
> 'Kiselis' is a slow cooked compote made of cranberries in Latvian - it
> is 'tart' - not 'sour'.
> (It is also a traditional (and very nice) Latvian dessert.)
You are unable to see that Lat. sorbeo is derived from the same basis
as acerbo (to make bitter, to aggravate) and Serb. crpeti (draw,
deplete, exhaust) and that basis was Xur-Bel-Gon; cf. Russ. сербать/
serbatь (slurp), Eng. slurp (MHG sürpfeln, sürfeln) and ML.
sorbillare. There are a lot of IE words that were derived from the
above basis, including the names of large groups of people, known
today as Slavs (Slavonic), Serbs (Serbian; Srblji, Srbin), (H)Romans
and Germans (from celebration, celebrity; Ger. Ruhm /OHG hrôm, hroam,
hruom/; Serb. slava; from sur(b)livati => su(r)livati => slivati/
zalivati/sliti wash down, suffuse, melt down); the words related to
sorbillare and slurp, MHG sürfeln).
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> No, they are not.
> 'Kiselis' is a slow cooked compote made of cranberries in Latvian - it
> is 'tart' - not 'sour'.
> (It is also a traditional (and very nice) Latvian dessert.)
Lituanian surūgęs (sour; Latv. sarūgt) is, of course, related to
English sour. These Baltic words sound almost the same as Serbian
surutka (whey). Latvian siers and Lithuanian sūris (cheese) clearly
show that suris (cheese) is a product obtained from SOUR milk. In
Slavic the word "sir" (Russ. сыр; Czech sýr cheese) is distantly
related to the word "zora" (dawn; Russ. заря; Pol. zorza dawn ) and
the verbs "zoriti" (to dawn) and zreti (to ripe; Russ. зреть; Cz.
zrání ripening; Serb. zrenje ripening). A sort of solide clot made of
whey (Serb. surutka) is named "zarnjak" in Serbian; as you see it is
close to the above-mentioned Slavic words "zorenje" (dawning) and
"zrenje" (ripening; cf. Lith. aušra dawn and aštrus /sharp, ripe/;
Latv. aust means dawn, weave and break /terminate/).
You appeared to be uninformed even when your Baltic languages are in
question. Have you ever heard for the Lithuanian word gaižus (sour)
and Latvian gāzt (pour); both related to German gießen (pour, gush)
and Serbian kisnuti (to be in the raine). kišiti, kiša (rain); cf.
Serb. kisiti (to be acid, sour). These words clearly show that Serbian
šikljanje (gush) is related to kiseljenje (to make sour).
DV
- Linguistics is a serious science... don't you know it?
Craoi...@gmail.com
Now you probably know what I meant by saying that a Vukotic class kook
is able to turn his very defeats into victories.
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 5, 8:48 am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 12:30 pm, Du¹an Vukotiæ
>>
>> <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Lat. oxygala (sour milk) is phonetically very similar to the Serbian
>>> word kiseljenje (acidification);
>> No it isn't.. as explained below...
>>
>>> according to the Xur-Bel-Gon theory
>>> both of these words (oxygala, kiseljenje) are derived from the same
>>> basis - Xur-Gon-Bel.
>> In which case your theory is wrong.
>>
>>> It means that the earliest forms of kiselo (sour)
>>> and oxygala could have sounded as xur-g-(b)-ljene and that both words
>>> were also related to Latin sorbeo (to suck in, drink, swallow) as well
>>> as Serbian ¹ikljanje (gush).
>
>> No, they are not.
>> 'Kiselis' is a slow cooked compote made of cranberries in Latvian - it
>> is 'tart' - not 'sour'.
>> (It is also a traditional (and very nice) Latvian dessert.)
>
> You are unable to see that Lat. sorbeo is derived from the same basis
> as acerbo (to make bitter, to aggravate) and Serb. crpeti (draw,
> deplete, exhaust) and that basis was Xur-Bel-Gon;
In the same sense that he is unable to see that 2 + 2 = 5. Once again,
you rely not on proving anything but on imploring people to share your
imagination.
Harlan Messinger
Indeed. Since it's so obvious what I was getting at that everyone would
expect that even Dušan could tell what I meant, when Dušan tries to
deflect it by feigning ignorance all he does is show everyone that he's
*trying* to look dumb.
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> > You are unable to see that Lat. sorbeo is derived from the same basis
> > as acerbo (to make bitter, to aggravate) and Serb. crpeti (draw,
> > deplete, exhaust) and that basis was Xur-Bel-Gon;
>
> In the same sense that he is unable to see that 2 + 2 = 5. Once again,
> you rely not on proving anything but on imploring people to share your
> imagination
Are you able to say anything concrete instead of repeating the same
"mantra" constantly?
I see... you understood nothing of what I was saying. As blind as you
are, you should be a preacher.
Simply, your IQ is too low for a such complex linguistic matter. Even
an ordinary ship-keeping job would be too complicated for your pea
sized brain.
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> What you *may* have been looking for was the Latin 'exactor' - meaning
> 'impellor'.
> But that is not cognate with the Serb. 'crpet' in anyway.
> Why? Because the Serb. 'crpet' has to have the same origin as Baltic
> Latvian 'krapt' - meaning
> 'to steal'.
> And the closest Latin analog can only be Latin 'corruptio' - meaning
> 'to steal'.
Lithuanian grobti (rob) is the same word as Serbian orobiti (rob; from
h/orob-iti) and both of these words are akin to the Serbian verb
grabiti (grab; Lith. griebti; Latv. grābiens; even the Latvian
prefixed form sa-grābt is the same as Serbian za-grabiti/z-grabiti
seize, catch, grab). It is the truth that Lithvanian language formed
its word "pa-grobti" (steal) from the grab- stem (Eng. grab, Serb.
grabiti), similar to Serbian po-grabiti, raz-grabiti (to seize
something in a wild manner; meaning close to Serb. orobiti (rob). Of
course, you wasn't wrong when you said that Serbian "crpeti" (deplete,
exhaust, wipe out, scoop, draw) is related to the verb
"grabiti" (seize, grab, catch) and "h/orobiti" (rob, plunder, rape);
cf. Serb. zarobljen (enslaved) and rob (slave).
> English 'crude' is derived from Latin 'Crudelis' - raw or bloody - not
> 'granular'.
Latin crudelis has the meaning "cruel" and the English cruel and rough
are akin to Serbian grub (rough); all from the above verb grab
(grabiti); cf. Serbian grabljivac and English rapacious (obviously fro
h/rapacious; Lat. rapina /robbery, plunder/; ravine; hence Lat.
raptus /tearing off, plunder, rape, rob/ and ruptor/rumpere /breaker,
violator/= robbery)
> And 'grain' itself only appears from c.1315 and is related to L.
> granum "seed"
>
> The best fit that exists between Latin 'granum' (seed) and medieval
> 'grain' - and which also encompasses the idea of granularity - is a
> root that encompasses meanings of both 'seed' and 'granularity'...
Try to grasp that L.Latin granulum is a counterpart-word to Serbian
"zrnevlje" (granules) and both of these words are derived from Xur-Gon-
Bel basis (Latv. grans /grain/, granulēt /corn/, Lith. granuliuoti /
grain/). Of course, if you thumbed the Lithuanian dictionary more
carefully, you would see that Lithuanian grūdas (grain) sounds the
same as Serbian gruda (clot, clod). There is the Serbian word grud(v)a
with the same meaning as gruda (clod), where the sound -v- was
inserted afterwards, "replacing" the approximant -w- or the vowel -u-.
Now we can also see that the Serbian noun ugrušak (a lump of blood,
blood clot, clot) and the verb grušati (coagulate, curdle, clot; Serb.
ugrušana krv = curdled blood) are not only related to English crude
but also to Greek κρέας (meat) and another Serbian word - krtina (the
raw /fatless/ meat).
DV
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 5, 1:41 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
>>> You are unable to see that Lat. sorbeo is derived from the same basis
>>> as acerbo (to make bitter, to aggravate) and Serb. crpeti (draw,
>>> deplete, exhaust) and that basis was Xur-Bel-Gon;
>> In the same sense that he is unable to see that 2 + 2 = 5. Once again,
>> you rely not on proving anything but on imploring people to share your
>> imagination
>
> Are you able to say anything concrete instead of repeating the same
> "mantra" constantly?
As long as you keep operating the same way, the response will be the
same. Do you expect the answer to "What is 2 + 2?" to change to
something other than 4 just for the sake of variety?
> I see... you understood nothing of what I was saying.
I understood it fine. I understood that it to be one more of your
entreaties to believe a bunch of your claims, not through evidence and
sound reasoning but through entreaty and insult. I understood that it
was the same muddleheaded approach you've been taking all along.
> As blind as you
> are, you should be a preacher.
> Simply, your IQ is too low
"Do you believe everything Dušan says just because he begs you to
believe it?" is not a question found on an IQ test. And if it were, the
answer "No" would be the correct one.
> for a such complex linguistic matter.
Yes, it is complex--so complex that "because I say so" and "you're blind
if you don't agree with me" are hopelessly inappropriate approaches to
it, yet those are the only ones you know.
Dušan Vukotić
The essential question is, have you any concrete objections? No, you
have not, you are just repeating the same prattle like a heavy
drunkard: "it's nothing!", "it's wrong"....
If you think that my HSF theory is delusive then I do not understand
your steady (unnatural) efforts to disprove it in general. To disprove
something you must prove it false by using the valid argumentation;
you normally have to provide evidences, is it not? Where are your
evidences?
Once again, try to be concrete (as Lorad for instance) and my answer
will be precise and polite as it always was when I dealt with people
who knew how to use the brain.
DV
Harlan Messinger
>
> The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?
No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
statements are correct. "Everything I say is true unless someone proves
otherwise" is not the way the world works.
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
>
> > The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?
>
> No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
> statements are correct.
Of course, as well as you have to show that my statements are wrong.
You can not falsify my theory without reading it at all. Your
prejudice is your problem and your "superiority complex" is making a
complete idiot of you. Just on these thread you have enough material
to prove me wrong; only what you need is the following: find the weak
point in my "structure", fill it with your "dynamite" evidences and
ignite the "fuse". As you can see, it is a piece of cake! What are you
waiting for?
>"Everything I say is true unless someone proves
> otherwise" is not the way the world works.
Just like that... unless someone refutes my statements with a well-
grounded counter-arguments, my statements shall stand here as valid.
DV
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 5, 10:33 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
>>
>>> The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?
>> No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
>> statements are correct.
>
> Of course, as well as you have to show that my statements are wrong.
No. I don't. If you haven't provided any reason to believe they are true
besides, "because I say so", then they remain unproven, and if nobody
believed them before you claimed them, why in the world do you suppose
that anyone would believe them after you do?
> You can not falsify my theory without reading it at all. Your
> prejudice is your problem and your "superiority complex" is making a
> complete idiot of you.
Not holding *you* to be superior is not a superiority complex.
> Just on these thread you have enough material
> to prove me wrong;
If you're right, why are you completely, hopelessly, definitively unable
to prove it? You keep speaking of your discoveries, yet you have
"discovered" *nothing*, only hypothesized, accompanied by the inability
or lack of desire to show that your hypotheses are facts rather than
imagination
> only what you need is the following: find the weak
> point in my "structure", fill it with your "dynamite" evidences and
> ignite the "fuse". As you can see, it is a piece of cake! What are you
> waiting for?
>
>> "Everything I say is true unless someone proves
>> otherwise" is not the way the world works.
>
> Just like that... unless someone refutes my statements with a well-
> grounded counter-arguments, my statements shall stand here as valid.
Assuming you mean *true* rather than "valid" (which applies to
reasoning, not statements): wow. If that's what you think, then you are
genuinely delusional. (I *know* your reasoning leans heavily toward the
invalid side. Time and time again, when you *have* tried to exercise
something resembling reasoning, it's been packed with flaws and fallacies.)
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
> > On Apr 5, 10:33 pm, Harlan Messinger
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
>
> >>> The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?
> >> No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
> >> statements are correct.
>
> > Of course, as well as you have to show that my statements are wrong.
>
> No. I don't. If you haven't provided any reason to believe they are true
> besides, "because I say so", then they remain unproven, and if nobody
> believed them before you claimed them, why in the world do you suppose
> that anyone would believe them after you do?
Every intelligent person can see that you are using the "broken
record" method. Simply, you are reapeating, time after time, the same
string of denying words. You don't even try to read what I have
written, because you are "genuinely" and a priori convinced that
anything I say must be incorrect. Of course, I have nothing against
your inferential and negatory observation, although I am earnestly
surprised by your zealotry, which is evident in your efforts to debunk
my statements on the feeble and doubtful grounds of a certain (known
only to you) "general principles".
The fact is, anyone who is trying to establish a new theory must
appreciate any concrete (substantial) critical reflection (positive or
negative), because it is a chance to check the cogency and solidity of
someone's ideas or hypothetical thoughts in reality.
> > Just on these thread you have enough material
> > to prove me wrong;
>
> If you're right, why are you completely, hopelessly, definitively unable
> to prove it? You keep speaking of your discoveries, yet you have
> "discovered" *nothing*, only hypothesized, accompanied by the inability
> or lack of desire to show that your hypotheses are facts rather than
> imagination
Don't you know that any new "theory" can only be a hypothesis, at
least after the time when a certain hypotheses is either accepted or
rejected by the majority of renowned world scientists.
> > only what you need is the following: find the weak
> > point in my "structure", fill it with your "dynamite" evidences and
> > ignite the "fuse". As you can see, it is a piece of cake! What are you
> > waiting for?
>
> >> "Everything I say is true unless someone proves
> >> otherwise" is not the way the world works.
> > Just like that... unless someone refutes my statements with a well-
> > grounded counter-arguments, my statements shall stand here as valid.
>
> Assuming you mean *true* rather than "valid" (which applies to
> reasoning, not statements): wow. If that's what you think, then you are
> genuinely delusional. (I *know* your reasoning leans heavily toward the
> invalid side. Time and time again, when you *have* tried to exercise
> something resembling reasoning, it's been packed with flaws and fallacies.)
When I say "valid" I mean "valid" (well-grounded). It is a maximum I
can say about my HSF "theory". Once again, I think that my hypothesis
is logically valid and hope that it will be proven true in the near
future.
DV
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 6, 2:40 am, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
>>> On Apr 5, 10:33 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
>>>>> The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?
>>>> No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
>>>> statements are correct.
>>> Of course, as well as you have to show that my statements are wrong.
>> No. I don't. If you haven't provided any reason to believe they are true
>> besides, "because I say so", then they remain unproven, and if nobody
>> believed them before you claimed them, why in the world do you suppose
>> that anyone would believe them after you do?
>
> Every intelligent person can see that you are using the "broken
> record" method. Simply, you are reapeating, time after time, the same
> string of denying words.
Because they're the words that are applicable each and every time you,
like a broken record, make the same kind of unproven assertions.
> You don't even try to read what I have
> written,
Yes, I do, and every time it turns out to be yet another unproven
assertion. Are you expecting to keep doing the same stupid thing,
despite having been criticized for it hundreds of times, and suddenly,
one day, have a different outcome?
It doesn't occur to you that if you stop making unsupported assertions,
then you'll stop getting criticized for making unsupported assertions.
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> > You don't even try to read what I have
> > written,
>
> Yes, I do, and every time it turns out to be yet another unproven
> assertion.
My statements are always proven, but you have to learn to read my
words exactly as it is written. I can not use the standard linguistic
methods, especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.
How do you expect me to prove the relation among the words like Slavic
zemlja, Greek Σεμέλη, Latin globus and humus, Serbian h(l)um-ka; Russ.
holm (mound, a small hill). If you started from the "standard"
*dg'hem- root you wouldn't be able to explain words like Serbian
gomila, Latin cumulus, Serb. klobuk (clod, cap), oblak (cloud), kalpak
(cap), oklop (armor), glava (head), which are close cognates to Slavic
zemlja and Greek χώμα...
The only way to make it clear how all the above words have been
developed through the history is to use my HSF method; i.e. we need to
"apply" the Xur-Gon-Bel "formula", in this case it would be the Gon-
Bel-Gon ur-basis.
> Are you expecting to keep doing the same stupid thing,
> despite having been criticized for it hundreds of times, and suddenly,
> one day, have a different outcome?
Only stuped or careless people could say that I kept doing "the same
stupid thing".. There are only two reasons for such behaviour, you are
either brainless or so self-conceited that you cannot admit anything
that doesn't belong to the world of your swellheaded mental
"resourcefulness".
DV
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 7, 4:41 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
>>> You don't even try to read what I have
>>> written,
>> Yes, I do, and every time it turns out to be yet another unproven
>> assertion.
>
> My statements are always proven,
Listing a string of words with sometimes the faintest of phonetic (or
sometimes only orthographical) resemblence and saying, "What do you
think of this?" is not proof. I have NEVER seen you prove any system set
of correspondences that would lead to a reasonable conclusion that a
connection is more than your mere supposition.
> but you have to learn to read my
> words exactly as it is written. I can not use the standard linguistic
> methods,
If you can't do brain surgery, then don't do brain surgery.
> especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
> called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
> findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
> a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.
When did they become obsolete? Is it, just like everything else, because
you say so?
> How do you expect me to prove the relation among the words like Slavic
> zemlja, Greek Σεμέλη, Latin globus and humus, Serbian h(l)um-ka; Russ.
> holm (mound, a small hill).
Gee, somehow *real* historical linguists know how to do these things. If
you would read books about historical linguistics to find out how it's
done, then you would know how to do it. And, by the way, "I don't know
how to prove it, so I get special dispensation for making claims without
proof" doesn't work.
Craoi...@gmail.com
> On Apr 5, 10:33 pm, Harlan Messinger
>
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
>
> > > The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?
>
> > No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
> > statements are correct.
>
> Of course, as well as you have to show that my statements are wrong.
Nope, he does not need to do anything like that. In science, the one
who is proposing a new theory is the one who shall prove his theory.
Not the other way round.
Dušan Vukotić
> On 6 huhti, 02:11, Duðan Vukotiã <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 10:33 pm, Harlan Messinger
>
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?
>
> > > No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
> > > statements are correct.
>
> > Of course, as well as you have to show that my statements are wrong.
>
> Nope, he does not need to do anything like that. In science, the one
> who is proposing a new theory is the one who shall prove his theory.
> Not the other way round.
Let's ask Giordano Bruno: "Time is the father of truth!"
DV
Peter T. Daniels
> On Apr 7, 4:41 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
> > > You don't even try to read what I have
> > > written,
>
> > Yes, I do, and every time it turns out to be yet another unproven
> > assertion.
>
> My statements are always proven, but you have to learn to read my
> words exactly as it is written. I can not use the standard linguistic
> methods, especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
> called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
> findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
> a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.
>
> How do you expect me to prove the relation among the words like Slavic
> zemlja, Greek Σεμέλη, Latin globus and humus, Serbian h(l)um-ka; Russ.
> holm (mound, a small hill). If you started from the "standard"
> *dg'hem- root you wouldn't be able to explain words like Serbian
> gomila, Latin cumulus, Serb. klobuk (clod, cap), oblak (cloud), kalpak
> (cap), oklop (armor), glava (head), which are close cognates to Slavic
> zemlja and Greek χώμα...
By showing, step by step, how each of the attested words developed out
of whichever basis you postulate -- keeping in mind that at every step
your procedures have to also generate all the related words in all the
languages you didn't happen to include in your initial list.
Craoi...@gmail.com
You aren't Giordano Bruno.
Bart Mathias
> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
>
>>[...]
>> You don't even try to read what I have
>> written,
>
>
I, for one, keep wondering why.
> It doesn't occur to you that if you stop making unsupported assertions,
> then you'll stop getting criticized for making unsupported assertions.
And what would happen if people quit wasting their time criticizing?
I guess it's all in fun.
Bart Mathias
Dušan Vukotić
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
Your mother lived a nice meaningful life and then she gave birth to
you...
DV
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> > especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
> > called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
> > findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
> > a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.
>
> When did they become obsolete? Is it, just like everything else, because
> you say so?
Can you not see that heaven and Ger. Himmel (heaven) are derived from
the same "source" as Nebel (fog) or Serb. nebo (sky)? According to
"modern" root-diggers, English heaven is derived from a sufixed form
*ke-men-, while German Nebel and Latin nebula, Greek nephele as well
as Serbian nebo (sky) "sprang" from the root *nebh-. It is the reason
why I am saying that the main principles on which the "reconstructed"
PIE "roots" are based are obsolete and useless.
DV
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 7, 9:04 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
>>> especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
>>> called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
>>> findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
>>> a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.
>> When did they become obsolete? Is it, just like everything else, because
>> you say so?
>
> Can you not see
"Can you not see?" "Can you not see?" "Can you not see?" Dušan, can you
not see that this is not how this is done, and that this is why I keep
*telling* you that? And yet here you go again, with the same old trick,
the same old appeal to *please* see what you see when it *isn't* obvious
and when you have nothing of substance to back it up.
> that heaven and Ger. Himmel (heaven) are derived from
> the same "source" as Nebel (fog) or Serb. nebo (sky)? According to
> "modern" root-diggers, English heaven is derived from a sufixed form
> *ke-men-, while German Nebel and Latin nebula, Greek nephele as well
> as Serbian nebo (sky) "sprang" from the root *nebh-.
I don't know who "modern root-diggers" are--you mean, people like
yourself who don't know what you're doing and yet presume to be
producing convincing information?
> It is the reason
> why I am saying that the main principles on which the "reconstructed"
> PIE "roots" are based are obsolete and useless.
I see you draw no connection that leads to this conclusion from your
previous remarks. Do you have no idea at all how to make an argument?
How to reason logically from premises to a conclusion?
Your premises:
Some "modern" root-diggers claim heaven is a suffixed
for *ke-men-.
They also claim that Nebel and nebula and nephele and
nebo come from *nebh-.
Your conclusion:
The main principles on which "reconstructed" PIE "roots"
are based are obsolete and useless.
I don't even know if you're saying that the derivations above *are* or
*are not* the "reconstructed" PIE roots. If they are, then there is
nothing linking your premises to your conclusion. If they are not, then
since your premises are not that these relationships are true, but only
that people whom you call "modern" root-diggers *claim* them to be true,
there is still no connection. The earlier reconstructions aren't
obsolete because unnamed later "researchers" claim that they are.
Dušan Vukotić
OK, maybe I used an inadequate term here. When I said "obsolete" I
meant "worn out", "ineffective", "indistinct" and not "no longer in
use".
If you are unable to understand the kinship between German Himmel and
Nebel (heaven, fog) and all the other words I mentioned above and if
you cannot grasp that all these words sprung from the same "source",
just let me know and I will explan it to you, even in tiniest
details.
It means that these words cannot be derived from different "roots",
because they share the same "place of birth".
DV
Harlan Messinger
Once *again* you exonerate yourself from supporting your claims by
declaring that I should be able to see them. Look: either *you* explain
what you have discovered, or stop pretending that you have discovered
something and then blaming it on everyone else that they can't
"understand" or or "see" it.
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, Harlan Messinger
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Apr 7, 9:04 pm, Harlan Messinger
> >>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> >>>>> especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
> >>>>> called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
> >>>>> findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
> >>>>> a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.
> >>>> When did they become obsolete? Is it, just like everything else, because
> >>>> you say so?
> >>> Can you not see
Simply, I didn't want to underestimate your intellectual capacity and
I kindly asked you if you were able to understand the relation between
Himmel and Nebel.
DV
Harlan Messinger
> Simply, I didn't want to underestimate your intellectual capacity and
> I kindly asked you if you were able to understand the relation between
> Himmel and Nebel.
If you're claiming one, then explain it, and in a methodical, scientific
manner. It's not my job to do your work for you, and you have no
business claiming something if you're less capable than you think I am
of explaining it.
Harlan Messinger
You're like a guy who takes a date to an expensive restaurant to impress
her and at the end of the meal asks her if she has enough money with her
to pay for the meal, while still expecting to get laid.
Dušan Vukotić
I told you the following: "tell me if you cannot understand the
relation between Himmel and Nebel and I am going to explain it to
you".
Are you illiterate?
DV
Paul J Kriha
news:6484e7203a57012a...@pseudo.borked.net...
> On Apr 8, 4:42 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > You're like a guy who takes a date to an expensive restaurant to impress
> > her and at the end of the meal asks her if she has enough money with her
> > to pay for the meal, while still expecting to get laid.
>
Let's wait and see what Heidi has to say.
Dušan Vukotić
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:6484e7203a57012a...@pseudo.borked.net...
>
> > On Apr 8, 4:42 pm, Harlan Messinger
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > You're like a guy who takes a date to an expensive restaurant to impress
> > > her and at the end of the meal asks her if she has enough money with her
> > > to pay for the meal, while still expecting to get laid.
>
> > Is he going to get lucky or not? We're all dying to find out.
>
> Let's wait and see what Heidi has to say.
What about your intelligent wife who chose a monkey to be her low-fool
husband?
What price is she willing to pay to get properly laid?
DV
Peter T. Daniels
> On Apr 8, 4:42 pm, Harlan Messinger
>
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > her and at the end of the meal asks her if she has enough money with her
> > to pay for the meal, while still expecting to get laid.
>
In case it's less than obvious this time, I didn't write that.
Harlan Messinger
I don't have to perform for you before you explain *your* claim.
Besides, I suspect that what you're doing is testing the waters to find
out whether you can tell me any kind of nonsense that pleases you
without expecting a challenge.
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 10:39 pm, Harlan Messinger
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Simply, I didn't want to underestimate your intellectual capacity and
> >>> I kindly asked you if you were able to understand the relation between
> >>> Himmel and Nebel.
> >> If you're claiming one, then explain it, and in a methodical, scientific
> >> manner. It's not my job to do your work for you, and you have no
> >> business claiming something if you're less capable than you think I am
> >> of explaining it.
>
> > I told you the following: "tell me if you cannot understand the
> > relation between Himmel and Nebel and I am going to explain it to
> > you".
> > Are you illiterate?
>
> I don't have to perform for you before you explain *your* claim.
>
> Besides, I suspect that what you're doing is testing the waters to find
> out whether you can tell me any kind of nonsense that pleases you
On the contrary, I have been challinging you with different kind of
"puzzles" for weeks, but you've always been running away from an open
and "merciless" debate; you have never dared to accept my challenge.
All you need to tell me now is, do you find the German words Himmel
and Nebel closely related and do you understand how these words are
connected together?
What is their "common denominator"?
If your answer is negative I will precisely tell you how and why these
two words are related. Let us pass on from the infertile
generalization to the essentially specific subjects.
DV
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 10:39 pm, Harlan Messinger
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Simply, I didn't want to underestimate your intellectual capacity and
> >>> I kindly asked you if you were able to understand the relation between
> >>> Himmel and Nebel.
> >> If you're claiming one, then explain it, and in a methodical, scientific
> >> manner. It's not my job to do your work for you, and you have no
> >> business claiming something if you're less capable than you think I am
> >> of explaining it.
>
> > I told you the following: "tell me if you cannot understand the
> > relation between Himmel and Nebel and I am going to explain it to
> > you".
> > Are you illiterate?
>
> I don't have to perform for you before you explain *your* claim.
>
> Besides, I suspect that what you're doing is testing the waters to find
> out whether you can tell me any kind of nonsense that pleases you
>
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 9, 4:41 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
>>> On Apr 8, 10:39 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
>>>>> Simply, I didn't want to underestimate your intellectual capacity and
>>>>> I kindly asked you if you were able to understand the relation between
>>>>> Himmel and Nebel.
>>>> If you're claiming one, then explain it, and in a methodical, scientific
>>>> manner. It's not my job to do your work for you, and you have no
>>>> business claiming something if you're less capable than you think I am
>>>> of explaining it.
>>> I told you the following: "tell me if you cannot understand the
>>> relation between Himmel and Nebel and I am going to explain it to
>>> you".
>>> Are you illiterate?
>> I don't have to perform for you before you explain *your* claim.
>>
>> Besides, I suspect that what you're doing is testing the waters to find
>> out whether you can tell me any kind of nonsense that pleases you
>> without expecting a challenge.- Hide quoted text -
>
> On the contrary, I have been challinging you with different kind of
> "puzzles" for weeks,
Like I said, I'm not here to perform for your amusement. You're making
claims. If you want people to believe you, prove them. It's that simple.
but you've always been running away from an open
> and "merciless" debate; you have never dared to accept my challenge.
>
> All you need to tell me now is, do you find the German words Himmel
> and Nebel closely related and do you understand how these words are
> connected together?
> What is their "common denominator"?
>
> If your answer is negative I will precisely tell you how and why these
> two words are related. Let us pass on from the infertile
> generalization to the essentially specific subjects.
More stalling from you. You know, most discoverers can't wait to
bedazzle everyone with their discoveries. They don't play stupid games
as you do.
Here's the bottom line: You are making claims. If you care whether I or
anyone else believes them, then support them. If you don't care, then
why are you bothering at all? As the expression goes, put up or shut up.
lora...@cs.com
> On Apr 5, 8:48 am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>
> > No, they are not.
> > 'Kiselis' is a slow cooked compote made of cranberries in Latvian - it
> > is 'tart' - not 'sour'.
> > (It is also a traditional (and very nice) Latvian dessert.)
>
> Lituanian surūgęs (sour; Latv. sarūgt) is, of course, related to
> English sour. These Baltic words sound almost the same as Serbian
> surutka (whey). Latvian siers and Lithuanian sūris (cheese) clearly
> show that suris (cheese) is a product obtained from SOUR milk.
Nice.. now you affirm that Baltic Lith. 'sūris' is the most primal
source for 'sour'.
That's what I previously said re Latv. 'suurs'. Oh well..
> In
> Slavic the word "sir" (Russ. сыр; Czech sýr cheese) is distantly
> related to the word "zora" (dawn; Russ. заря; Pol. zorza dawn ) and
> the verbs "zoriti" (to dawn) and zreti (to ripe; Russ. зреть; Cz.
> zrání ripening; Serb. zrenje ripening).
No.. Serbian 'cheese' is not related to 'dawn' - not even
conceptually.
(And 'sir' is Baltic first)
> A sort of solide clot made of
> whey (Serb. surutka) is named "zarnjak" in Serbian; as you see it is
> close to the above-mentioned Slavic words "zorenje" (dawning) and
> "zrenje" (ripening; cf. Lith. aušra dawn and aštrus /sharp, ripe/;
> Latv. aust means dawn, weave and break /terminate/).
No.. your 'surutka' comes from Baltic 'sarukts' meaning 'soured' or
'curdled'..
which has nothing to do with 'dawn', 'zrenje', or 'zoriti'.
You are on the wrong 'kling-klang' track again..
Yes.. Serbian whey 'surutka' looks related to Baltic 'sarukts'.. but
that is far as the Baltic root 'rugkt' can take you.
Your contention that Slavic 'dawns' "zora" Russ. заря; Pol. zorza and
the verbs "zoriti" (to dawn) - are related to 'sir' and 'surutka' is
another incorrect logical concatentaion - as they are not derived from
the same Baltic root 'rugkt'.
You are compounding errors uncritically.
Why? because they are derived from a different Baltic root; 'riit'.
'Riit' - Latv. - 'tomorrow' , 'no riit' - ' (from)tomorrow morning
(on)'
'Riitausma' is 'dawn'.
(Latv. 'Austrum' - means 'the east'.. from which the Germans got their
'ost'.
And is also where Tacitus got his mysterious "Aesti" descriptor of the
Balts that lived to the east of the 'germanic' sailors (from whom he
received that descriptor) who worked at the mouth of the Elbe.)
Anyway.. your actual remaining Slavic 'dawn' roots have been
(respectfully) dramatically reduced from 'riit' to 'ra', 'ря', 'rza'
showing energetic Slavic innovation from the more original 'riit'.
Only 'zoriiti' (cf. Baltic 'sariiti') shows conservatism.
> You appeared to be uninformed even when your Baltic languages are in
> question. Have you ever heard for the Lithuanian word gaižus (sour)
> and Latvian gāzt (pour); both related to German gießen (pour, gush)
> and Serbian kisnuti (to be in the raine). kišiti, kiša (rain); cf.
> Serb. kisiti (to be acid, sour). These words clearly show that Serbian
> šikljanje (gush) is related to kiseljenje (to make sour).
> DV
>
> - Linguistics is a serious science... don't you know it?
A broad subject.. It is only what critical intelligence can make of
it.
Now go eat your saruktas putras.
Dušan Vukotić
Can't you see that Latvian rašanās (birth) and Lithuanian pradžia
(birth) are the words related to Serbian porod (birth) and po-rađanje
and rađanje (birth)? All these words appeared from the Xur-Gon or Bel-
Xur-Gon basis? And from the same basis are born the above words as
Serbian zora (dawn), zorenje (dawning) and zrenje (ripening);
including Serbian rast (growth), iskra (sparkle) and sutra (tomorrow).
The root 'riit' is absolutely impossible, because there is none of
the IE words that originally started with the sound -r-.
DV
Harlan Messinger
> Can't you see that Latvian rašanās (birth) and Lithuanian pradžia
> (birth) are the words related to Serbian porod (birth) and po-rađanje
> and rađanje (birth)?
"Can't you see? Can't you see? Can't you see?" Yet AGAIN you can't
SUPPORT your remarks, you can only beg people to agree with you.
Dušan Vukotić
If you had any knowledge of Baltic and Slavic languages you would know
that no additional proofs are necessary in order to understand that
Latvian rašanās (birth) is closely related to Serbian rađanje (birth)
as well as Lithuanian pradžia (birth) is equal to Serbian porođaj
(birth).
DV
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 10, 4:55 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
>>> Can't you see that Latvian rašanās (birth) and Lithuanian pradžia
>>> (birth) are the words related to Serbian porod (birth) and po-rađanje
>>> and rađanje (birth)?
>> "Can't you see? Can't you see? Can't you see?" Yet AGAIN you can't
>> SUPPORT your remarks, you can only beg people to agree with you.
>
> If you had any knowledge of Baltic and Slavic languages you would know
> that no additional proofs are necessary
Obviously they are since he doesn't believe you.
> in order to understand that
> Latvian rašanās (birth) is closely related to Serbian rađanje (birth)
> as well as Lithuanian pradžia (birth) is equal to Serbian porođaj
> (birth).
Maybe you're right. It seems reasonable. Can you prove it?
Do you think Latin "habeo" is related to German "haben"?
Do you think the English words "day" and "diary" are related? Which of
them do you think is related to "journal"?
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> Do you think Latin "habeo" is related to German "haben"?
Of course it is, as well as it is related to Serbo-Slavic
"imati" (have)!
> Do you think the English words "day" and "diary" are related? Which of
> them do you think is related to "journal"?
Let us start with the Gaelic holiday celebrated around May 1, called
Beltane (also known as May Day; O. Irish Beltain "bright fire"). This
word sounds almost the same as Serbian "beli dan" (white day). Old
Irish "bright fire" (Beltain; the Gaulish deity Belenos "bright one")
could be translated to Serbian as "beli oganj" - "white fire" or
"paljenje" (firing; words derived from the primeval Bel-Gon basis). On
the other side, there is AS bǽl (fire, flame).
AS georne, giorne, gyrne; Ger. gern (diligently, carefully, zealously,
willingly, readily) is related to Serbian orno; oran (ready, diligent,
willing; from h/oran; Hor-Gon basis). Serbian "oran" (diligent, ready)
comes from the verb "uraniti" (get up early; cf. Eng. ere). Now try to
compare Greek χρονος (time), αυριον (to-morrow, next day) with Serbo-
Slavic utro/jutro (morning), sutra/zavtra (tomorrow) and zora (dawn);
zorenje (dawning) and žurenje/jurenje; žriti/juriti (haste, hurry,
rush). In addition, we can see that MHG hurren (to whir, move fast) is
the same word as the above-mentioned Serbian words žurenje and jurenje
(hastiness, hurry). Logically, you must be 'oran' (georne, eager) and
you must get up early (Serb. rano; uraniti; from gon-h/rano) in the
morning (jutro) if you want not to be "overran" by time (chronos,
Serb. ura, Eng. hour). Finally, there is the Avestan ayar (day), which
is related to English year, hour and ere, including the Latin diurnus,
French jour, journée and Italian giorno.
It means that Latin dies and English day (Ger. Tag, Serb. dan) are
derived from the reduplicated Gon syllable (Slavic oganj fire, Eng.
gun :-), Lat. ignis, Hett. agniš; OSl. огнь), while diurnus comes from
Hor-Gon basis (hurry, ere, early. It is interesting to mention that
Lat, diurnu/s originated fro giurnu/s and that the Italian
"day" (giorno) is "older" than he Latin diurnu-. Probably, some of the
Latin "orthographers" mixed dies with giurnu- and changed the initial
velar to dental.
DV
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 10, 6:45 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
>> Do you think Latin "habeo" is related to German "haben"?
>
> Of course it is, as well as it is related to Serbo-Slavic
> "imati" (have)!
Well, since they *aren't* related, you've just shown how meaningless "of
course" is when it comes from you.
>
>> Do you think the English words "day" and "diary" are related? Which of
>> them do you think is related to "journal"?
>
> Let us start with the Gaelic holiday celebrated around May 1, called
> Beltane (also known as May Day; O. Irish Beltain "bright fire"). This
> word sounds almost the same as Serbian "beli dan" (white day). Old
> Irish "bright fire" (Beltain; the Gaulish deity Belenos "bright one")
> could be translated to Serbian as "beli oganj" - "white fire" or
> "paljenje" (firing; words derived from the primeval Bel-Gon basis). On
> the other side, there is AS bǽl (fire, flame).
>
> AS georne, giorne, gyrne; Ger. gern (diligently, carefully, zealously,
> willingly, readily) is related to Serbian orno; oran (ready, diligent,
> willing; from h/oran; Hor-Gon basis).
You haven't established the validity of your "Hor-Gon" "basis",
therefore it can't be used to demonstrate anything. It's like trying to
base a physics proof on something you read in Harry Potter.
> Serbian "oran" (diligent, ready)
> comes from the verb "uraniti" (get up early; cf. Eng. ere). Now try to
> compare Greek χρονος (time), αυριον (to-morrow, next day) with Serbo-
> Slavic utro/jutro (morning), sutra/zavtra (tomorrow) and zora (dawn);
> zorenje (dawning) and žurenje/jurenje; žriti/juriti (haste, hurry,
> rush). In addition, we can see that MHG hurren (to whir, move fast) is
> the same word as the above-mentioned Serbian words žurenje and jurenje
> (hastiness, hurry). Logically, you must be 'oran' (georne, eager) and
> you must get up early
Poetic cuteness is not evidence of a linguistic relationship. So here
you've just destroyed everything with another instance of your "because
I say so" strategy. I wonder if you think Rudyard Kipling believed his
own "Just-So Stories".
> (Serb. rano; uraniti; from gon-h/rano) in the
> morning (jutro) if you want not to be "overran" by time (chronos,
> Serb. ura, Eng. hour). Finally, there is the Avestan ayar (day), which
> is related to English year, hour and ere, including the Latin diurnus,
> French jour, journée and Italian giorno.
>
> It means that Latin dies and English day (Ger. Tag, Serb. dan) are
> derived from the reduplicated Gon syllable (Slavic oganj fire,
Nothing that precedes this last sentence of yours "means" that and, once
again, you're resorting to "because I say so".
> Eng.
> gun :-), Lat. ignis, Hett. agniš; OSl. огнь), while diurnus comes from
> Hor-Gon basis (hurry, ere, early. It is interesting to mention that
> Lat, diurnu/s originated fro giurnu/s and that the Italian
> "day" (giorno) is "older" than he Latin diurnu-. Probably, some of the
> Latin "orthographers" mixed dies with giurnu- and changed the initial
> velar to dental.
And then they went back in time and and got Cicero to use it? I ask,
because Cicero used forms of this word, and there sure as hell wasn't
any Italian being spoken in his day.
"Quod est tempus, quo illi non cantent, vel diurnum, vel nocturnem?"
"Labores diurni nocturnique domi militaeque."
Isn't it time you stopped pretending, with such an authoritative air, to
know what you're talking about? Isn't it time you stopped making things
up and then trying to pass them off as revelations?
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 6:45 pm, Harlan Messinger
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
> >> Do you think Latin "habeo" is related to German "haben"?
>
> > Of course it is, as well as it is related to Serbo-Slavic
> > "imati" (have)!
>
> Well, since they *aren't* related, you've just shown how meaningless "of
> course" is when it comes from you.
You believe that anything written in "scientific" books must be
true :-)
DV
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 14, 9:20 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
>>> On Apr 10, 6:45 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>>>> Do you think Latin "habeo" is related to German "haben"?
>>> Of course it is, as well as it is related to Serbo-Slavic
>>> "imati" (have)!
>> Well, since they *aren't* related, you've just shown how meaningless "of
>> course" is when it comes from you.
>
> You believe that anything written in "scientific" books must be
No. I'm convinced by the evidence. You know, evidence? Which you never
provide? You seem so perplexed at your failure to sway anyone, yet you
just can't figure this out, can you, the difference between science on
one hand and whatever it is you're doing on the other?
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 9:20 pm, Harlan Messinger
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Apr 10, 6:45 pm, Harlan Messinger
> >>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> >>>> Do you think Latin "habeo" is related to German "haben"?
> >>> Of course it is, as well as it is related to Serbo-Slavic
> >>> "imati" (have)!
> >> Well, since they *aren't* related, you've just shown how meaningless "of
> >> course" is when it comes from you.
>
> > You believe that anything written in "scientific" books must be
> > true.
>
> No. I'm convinced by the evidence. You know, evidence? Which you never
> provide? You seem so perplexed at your failure to sway anyone, yet you
> just can't figure this out, can you, the difference between science on
> one hand and whatever it is you're doing on the other?
There is no evidences at all that 'haben' and 'habeo' are false
cognates. What do you think, is German Heft (grip; MHG haft fetter,
bond) related to habeo/capio and haben? On the other side is Serbian
hvat (grip) and verbs hvatati (grip, grasp, take, seize; Russ.
хватать), hapiti (take, grab; Czech сháраti grab, seize) and okovati
(fetter). If I say that Slavic hapati (take, grab, seize) and German
haben (have) are related to Slavic hvat- and Germanic haft- (Ger. Haft
imprisonment) I do not know will you be able to understand it.
Therefore, compare English captiv-ity (Lat. captivus prisoner) and
German Haft (jail, detainment; cf. Serb. hapsiti arrest) and maybe you
will be able to grasp that Latin capio and habeo are the words that
are derived from the same basis.
After all the above Germanic and Slavic examples are presented, only a
complete idiot could claim that Latin habeo and OE habban are
unrelated words or false cognates.
DV
Paul J Kriha
news:2ba1da6d-f7fd-4e0b...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Excellent response, bravo, you have Harlan on the ropes now!
pjk
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 15, 12:09 am, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
>>> On Apr 14, 9:20 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 10, 6:45 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>>>>>> Do you think Latin "habeo" is related to German "haben"?
>>>>> Of course it is, as well as it is related to Serbo-Slavic
>>>>> "imati" (have)!
>>>> Well, since they *aren't* related, you've just shown how meaningless "of
>>>> course" is when it comes from you.
>>> You believe that anything written in "scientific" books must be
>>> true.
>> No. I'm convinced by the evidence. You know, evidence? Which you never
>> provide? You seem so perplexed at your failure to sway anyone, yet you
>> just can't figure this out, can you, the difference between science on
>> one hand and whatever it is you're doing on the other?
>
> There is no evidences at all that 'haben' and 'habeo' are false
> cognates.
Then you don't even know what "evidence" means.
> What do you think, is German Heft (grip; MHG haft fetter,
> bond) related to habeo/capio and haben?
If it's related to "haben", then it isn't related to "habeo" or "capio".
> On the other side is Serbian
> hvat (grip) and verbs hvatati (grip, grasp, take, seize; Russ.
> хватать), hapiti (take, grab; Czech сháраti grab, seize) and okovati
> (fetter). If I say that Slavic hapati (take, grab, seize) and German
> haben (have) are related to Slavic hvat- and Germanic haft- (Ger. Haft
> imprisonment) I do not know will you be able to understand it.
If haben is, then habeo isn't. What part of that don't YOU understand?
> Therefore, compare English captiv-ity (Lat. captivus prisoner) and
> German Haft (jail, detainment; cf. Serb. hapsiti arrest) and maybe you
> will be able to grasp that Latin capio and habeo are the words that
> are derived from the same basis.
That's funny. You just got through an entire demonstration that doesn't
mention "habeo" anywhere, and then you imagine that you've demonstrated
something about "habeo".
> After all the above Germanic and Slavic examples are presented, only a
> complete idiot could claim that Latin habeo and OE habban are
> unrelated words or false cognates.
ROFL. None of the above demonstrates ANYTHING about "habeo". You didn't
even MENTION "habeo" except (1) in your conclusion and (2) in your taunt
that began "If I say that ..." and ended "... will you be able to
understand it". No demonstration, just, ONCE AGAIN:
- a torrent of assorted words from different
languages that may or may not be related, but no
explanation of why we can be confident that they are;
- an outright refusal to acknowledge the reasoning that leads
to the conclusion that they aren't;
- claims that what you say is true because it's supposedly
clear, lack of evidence notwithstanding, and a failure to
grasp that the reason we speak of "evidence" is that
what's supposedly "clear" is often not what's *true*;
- taunts and threats that if I don't agree with you,
you'll consider me an idiot; and
- a conclusion that, because of all of the above, still
amounts to nothing more than "because I say so".
Seriously, when I read your "argument" (carefully, every word, several
times), I was truly laughing out loud. It amazes me that you can put
together an exposition like this that doesn't address the question at
hand and then imagine that you've settled the question.
Dušan Vukotić
>
> - Show quoted text -
Before you started to laugh you should compare OE cepan and habban
(cf. Lat. capio, habeo... keep), both with the meaning keep (cf.
Serbian čuvanje keeping).
An idiot remains an idiot; regardless of arguments...
DV
Harlan Messinger
And one more time: you have no demonstration of your own, just one more
instruction to "compare". Compare, compare, compare. Please compare. I
beg you to compare. Always telling other people to compare, always in
lieu of your doing the work yourself to demonstrate the connections or
even the relevance of these words you keep introducing.
> An idiot remains an idiot; regardless of arguments...
Yes, you do. At least, until you learn how to make a sound one.
Dušan Vukotić
I do not know what else you need in order to understand that cepan/
haban originates from the same basis as capio/habeo. Everything is
fitting very nicely: phonetically, semantically. morphologically...
DV
Dušan Vukotić
I do not know what else you need in order to understand that cepan/
haban originates from the same basis as capio/habeo. Everything is
fitting very nicely: phonetically, semantically. morphologically...
DV
> > An idiot remains an idiot; regardless of arguments...
>
> Yes, you do. At least, until you learn how to make a sound one.- Hide quoted text -
Harlan Messinger
I need you to explain why one man--yourself--with little or no
understanding of the established theory that leads to the conclusion
that they *aren't* related *despite* the superficial resemblance--should
be surprised that "because I say so" isn't sufficient to change people's
minds. That's what I need.
By the way, OE says that OE cepan (Modern English "keep") has "no
related words known in the cognate langs". They've probably done their
homework. I have yet to see you do any, not beyond your usual, no matter
how many dozens of times I and others have challenged you to do so. In
fact, you've already said two or three times that you don't know *how*
to do it. Well, I'll tell *you* again for the third time: If you don't
know how to do brain surgery, don't do brain surgery. And don't be
surprised that nobody is mistaking a scalp massage for the real thing.
> Everything is
> fitting very nicely: phonetically, semantically. morphologically...
Because there's more to it than that. And that has been explained to
you--and DEMONSTRATED to you--again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and yet you continue to act totally
bewildered. Either you are inherently ineducable or you are adamant
about your unwillingness to learn what linguists have learned: that
"phonetically, semantically, morphologically" can be insufficient and
misleading and while it can lead to worthwhile hypotheses in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, it cannot be taken as conclusive. (None of
your exposition had anything to do with morphology, so I'm going to
leave that out.)
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> > I do not know what else you need in order to understand that cepan/
> > haban originates from the same basis as capio/habeo.
>
> I need you to explain why one man--yourself--with little or no
> understanding of the established theory that leads to the conclusion
> that they *aren't* related *despite* the superficial resemblance--should
> be surprised that "because I say so" isn't sufficient to change people's
> minds. That's what I need.
What a funny guy you are Harlan! Established theory? Only a totaly
uneducated or "upside-down" trained "etymologist" could say that these
words have nothing more in common except the "vague" and "superficial
resemblance". Didn't you know that "the flat Earth" was once a "well-
established theory"?
It is generally taken as true that the initial h in Germanic languages
corresponds to Latin c(k). One of the best examples to substantiate
the above statement is relation between heart (Herz) and cor (cordis;
Greek καρδιά). Nevertheless, try to imagine the following sound
correspodences among words like English heard, crowd, Latin grex
gregis (heard), Serbian krdo (heard) and družina (society, group of
people/animals, pack). Following this example we might say that
English initials k, h (crowd, herd) corresponded to Latin g (grex
gregis; Greek αγείρω gather together).
Now, let us take a more difficult example; English hamlet/home and
Latin habito (inhabit, dwell). I know that it is almost impossible for
you to understand the clear relations between Serbian naseobina
(settlement) and Latin inhabito (inhabit; Eng. inhabitance); Slavic
dom and English home; Serbian domaćin (host, lord) and latin dominus
(master of a house, lord); Serbian selo (village) and English (hamlet)
etc.; but I hope you are not so dull not to see that hamlet is related
to habito.
In this case we have a direct h <=> h correspondence between Latin and
English. If you start from my HSF "theory" and Gon-Bel-Gon basis
(which general meaning is "round heap") you will be able to grasp that
Serbian word imanje (from himanje) is the same word as English hamlet/
home and Latin habitus; all words derived from the verb "have" (Latin
habeo, Eng. have, Serb. h/imati; I hope you are not so stuped not to
see that Serbian "imati" originated from hibati; b => m sound
change).
DV
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 15, 8:22 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
>>> I do not know what else you need in order to understand that cepan/
>>> haban originates from the same basis as capio/habeo.
>> I need you to explain why one man--yourself--with little or no
>> understanding of the established theory that leads to the conclusion
>> that they *aren't* related *despite* the superficial resemblance--should
>> be surprised that "because I say so" isn't sufficient to change people's
>> minds. That's what I need.
>
> What a funny guy you are Harlan! Established theory? Only a totaly
> uneducated or "upside-down" trained "etymologist" could say that these
> words have nothing more in common except the "vague" and "superficial
> resemblance".
I rest my case. All you do is resort to the same arguments that I just
got through *again* telling you aren't conclusive. You are indeed
ineducable.
Peter T. Daniels
> In this case we have a direct h <=> h correspondence between Latin and
> English. If you start from my HSF "theory" and Gon-Bel-Gon basis
> (which general meaning is "round heap") you will be able to grasp that
> Serbian word imanje (from himanje) is the same word as English hamlet/
> home and Latin habitus; all words derived from the verb "have" (Latin
> habeo, Eng. have, Serb. h/imati; I hope you are not so stuped not to
> see that Serbian "imati" originated from hibati; b => m sound
> change).
Please show each of the steps by which those words emerged from what
you claim their "basis" was, accounting for the differences in all the
attested languages.
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 15, 8:22 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
>>> I do not know what else you need in order to understand that cepan/
>>> haban originates from the same basis as capio/habeo.
>> I need you to explain why one man--yourself--with little or no
>> understanding of the established theory that leads to the conclusion
>> that they *aren't* related *despite* the superficial resemblance--should
>> be surprised that "because I say so" isn't sufficient to change people's
>> minds. That's what I need.
>
> What a funny guy you are Harlan! Established theory? Only a totaly
> uneducated or "upside-down" trained "etymologist" could say that these
> words have nothing more in common except the "vague" and "superficial
> resemblance". Didn't you know that "the flat Earth" was once a "well-
> established theory"?
I changed my mind. I'm not resting my case.
The flat-earth theory wasn't dispelled by somebody whose approach, like
yours, was (a) to say that the earth was round without providing
evidence, (b) to scoff at the people who said it was flat, and (c) then
got mad at people for not believing him just because he said so. It was
dispelled by layout out relevant observations and demonstrating how they
were consistent with the round-earth theory and inconsistent with the
flat-earth theory.
So it's foolish for you to bring up the flat-earth theory. The only way
it would be useful to mention would be if I were taking the position
that an old theory must be correct because it's the existing theory. No,
I'm telling you (again and again and again and again and again) that if
you want people who believe the old theory to believe a new theory
instead, you have to give them convincing reasons *why* you are right.
Not "because I say so", not because you plead, "please believe me", not
because you keep asking, "don't you see?", not because you'll call us
names and disrespect us if we don't believe you.
> It is generally taken as true that the initial h in Germanic languages
> corresponds to Latin c(k). One of the best examples to substantiate
> the above statement is relation between heart (Herz) and cor (cordis;
> Greek καρδιά). Nevertheless, try to imagine the following sound
> correspodences among words like English heard, crowd, Latin grex
> gregis (heard), Serbian krdo (heard) and družina (society, group of
> people/animals, pack). Following this example
What "example"? All you said is "try to imagine". "Try to imagine"
doesn't prove anything. CAN YOU PROVE THAT ALL THESE WORDS ARE RELATED?
> we might say that
> English initials k, h (crowd, herd) corresponded to Latin g (grex
> gregis; Greek αγείρω gather together).
>
> Now, let us take a more difficult example; English hamlet/home and
> Latin habito (inhabit, dwell). I know that it is almost impossible for
> you to understand the clear relations between Serbian naseobina
> (settlement) and Latin inhabito (inhabit; Eng. inhabitance);
ROFL. You have dubbed it "clear", despite what anybody else thinks, and
therefore you don't have to prove anything: either people believe you
because you say so, or they are simply incapable of understanding. ARE
YOU CAPABLE OF PROVING IT?
> Slavic
> dom and English home; Serbian domaćin (host, lord) and latin dominus
> (master of a house, lord); Serbian selo (village) and English (hamlet)
> etc.; but I hope you are not so dull not to see that hamlet is related
> to habito.
One more time, proof by insult.
> In this case we have a direct h <=> h correspondence between Latin and
> English. If you start from my HSF "theory" and Gon-Bel-Gon basis
> (which general meaning is "round heap") you will be able to grasp
If I start from a phony theory, all I'll grasp are falsehoods.
> that
> Serbian word imanje (from himanje) is the same word as English hamlet/
> home and Latin habitus; all words derived from the verb "have" (Latin
> habeo, Eng. have, Serb. h/imati; I hope you are not so stuped not to
> see that Serbian "imati" originated from hibati; b => m sound
> change).
PROVE IT.
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> I changed my mind. I'm not resting my case.
>
> The flat-earth theory wasn't dispelled by somebody whose approach, like
> yours, was (a) to say that the earth was round without providing
> evidence, (b) to scoff at the people who said it was flat, and (c) then
> got mad at people for not believing him just because he said so. It was
> dispelled by layout out relevant observations and demonstrating how they
> were consistent with the round-earth theory and inconsistent with the
> flat-earth theory.
It is interesting to mention that the ancient man (according to the
words he used to name the Earth: Sl. zemlja; Gr. γη, χώμα, γεωλοφος /
hill/, Lat. humus; gleba, globus; tumulus = cumulus; tomb /!!/, Eng.
clod) was aware that the Earth was round.
> So it's foolish for you to bring up the flat-earth theory. The only way
> it would be useful to mention would be if I were taking the position
> that an old theory must be correct because it's the existing theory. No,
> I'm telling you (again and again and again and again and again) that if
> you want people who believe the old theory to believe a new theory
> instead, you have to give them convincing reasons *why* you are right.
> Not "because I say so", not because you plead, "please believe me", not
> because you keep asking, "don't you see?", not because you'll call us
> names and disrespect us if we don't believe you.
Not "because I say so", but because it is the truth!
> > It is generally taken as true that the initial h in Germanic languages
> > corresponds to Latin c(k). One of the best examples to substantiate
> > the above statement is relation between heart (Herz) and cor (cordis;
> > Greek καρδιά). Nevertheless, try to imagine the following sound
> > correspodences among words like English heard, crowd, Latin grex
> > gregis (heard), Serbian krdo (heard) and družina (society, group of
> > people/animals, pack). Following this example
>
> What "example"? All you said is "try to imagine". "Try to imagine"
> doesn't prove anything. CAN YOU PROVE THAT ALL THESE WORDS ARE RELATED?
> > we might say that
> > English initials k, h (crowd, herd) corresponded to Latin g (grex
> > gregis; Greek αγείρω gather together).
>
> > Now, let us take a more difficult example; English hamlet/home and
> > Latin habito (inhabit, dwell). I know that it is almost impossible for
> > you to understand the clear relations between Serbian naseobina
> > (settlement) and Latin inhabito (inhabit; Eng. inhabitance);
>
> ROFL. You have dubbed it "clear", despite what anybody else thinks, and
> therefore you don't have to prove anything: either people believe you
> because you say so, or they are simply incapable of understanding. ARE
> YOU CAPABLE OF PROVING IT?
Hamlet, Lat. habito, Serb. imanje (possession, assets, goods, domain,
estate) and selo (village) are the words that originated from the same
Gon-Bel-Gon basis ("round heap"). All the sound changes present in
these cases are well-known and easily explainable: hamlet <= Gon-Bel-
Gon => habito; Serb. soba /room/, na-seobina /settlement/, na-selje
(from na-seblje) => selo (village). The ultimate importance is on
understanding of semantics and other logical issues that could
(exactly!) inform us how (and from which "source"?) the language had
been developed in the past.
DV
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> PROVE IT
Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?
If you are able to understand the relation among the above words, you
will also be able to realize that Slavic sam (alone; from u-samljen <=
u-saMbljen) and Serb. soba (room) are the cognates of English same and
Ger. zu-sammen (together; sammeln /collect/ and selbe /same/).
In case you are unable to grasp what I am talking here about, you
better "rest your case" and never change your mind again!
DV
Harlan Messinger
Which you persist in being remarkably incapable of demonstrating, which
leads to the conclusion that when you say "it is the truth" you expect
us to believe you just "because I say so". How many more thousands of
times are you going to rely on "because I say so" in attempts, destined
to fail, to convince anyone of anything?
>>> It is generally taken as true that the initial h in Germanic languages
>>> corresponds to Latin c(k). One of the best examples to substantiate
>>> the above statement is relation between heart (Herz) and cor (cordis;
>>> Greek καρδιά). Nevertheless, try to imagine the following sound
>>> correspodences among words like English heard, crowd, Latin grex
>>> gregis (heard), Serbian krdo (heard) and družina (society, group of
>>> people/animals, pack). Following this example
>> What "example"? All you said is "try to imagine". "Try to imagine"
>> doesn't prove anything. CAN YOU PROVE THAT ALL THESE WORDS ARE RELATED?
>
>
>
>>> we might say that
>>> English initials k, h (crowd, herd) corresponded to Latin g (grex
>>> gregis; Greek αγείρω gather together).
>>> Now, let us take a more difficult example; English hamlet/home and
>>> Latin habito (inhabit, dwell). I know that it is almost impossible for
>>> you to understand the clear relations between Serbian naseobina
>>> (settlement) and Latin inhabito (inhabit; Eng. inhabitance);
>> ROFL. You have dubbed it "clear", despite what anybody else thinks, and
>> therefore you don't have to prove anything: either people believe you
>> because you say so, or they are simply incapable of understanding. ARE
>> YOU CAPABLE OF PROVING IT?
>
> Hamlet, Lat. habito, Serb. imanje (possession, assets, goods, domain,
> estate) and selo (village) are the words that originated from the same
> Gon-Bel-Gon basis ("round heap").
"Because I say so". PROVE IT.
> All the sound changes present in
> these cases are well-known and easily explainable: hamlet <= Gon-Bel-
> Gon => habito;
How can they be "well known" if you made them up and nobody but you
knows or believes this GonBelGonBelGonHorGonBelHor "basis" of yours? If
you imagine that your "theory" is "well known", let alone widely
accepted, then you are truly delusional. If you mean some *other* sound
changes that are genuinely well known, then please identify them,
because so far you haven't bothered to do so. Show the specific changes
and give other examples of them.
> Serb. soba /room/, na-seobina /settlement/, na-selje
> (from na-seblje) => selo (village). The ultimate importance is on
> understanding of semantics and other logical issues that could
> (exactly!) inform us how (and from which "source"?) the language had
> been developed in the past.
You haven't demonstrated any understanding, all you've demonstrated is
that you're making unsupported claims.
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 16, 2:14 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
>> PROVE IT
>
> Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
> English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
> Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?
Are you able to grasp that "are you able to grasp", for the umpteenth
time, doesn't prove anything? Are you able to grasp that one more time
you are making a claim without proof?
> If you are able to understand the relation among the above words, you
> will also be able to realize that Slavic sam (alone; from u-samljen <=
> u-saMbljen) and Serb. soba (room) are the cognates of English same and
> Ger. zu-sammen (together; sammeln /collect/ and selbe /same/).
Before you talk about my ability to understand, you should demonstrate
your own supposed ability to understanding my proving it.
> In case you are unable to grasp what I am talking here about, you
> better "rest your case" and never change your mind again!
What I'm grasping is that once again you continue to be unable to prove
anything you claim, and once again you misguidedly think that asking
"can you grasp?" amounts to proof.
Dušan Vukotić
Can you grasp that Serbian oblak (cloud) and English cloud are
cognates?
Of course not, your way of thinking is (too) stereotypical and
burdened with a lot of wrong doctrines and theories. Simply, your
brain is not able to function properly under such a monstrous amount
of useless information.
DV
Harlan Messinger
Can you grasp that I'm still waiting for you to prove something for once
in your life instead of imagining that asking "can you grasp"
establishes the reliability of your claim?
>
> Of course not, your way of thinking is (too) stereotypical and
> burdened with a lot of wrong doctrines and theories.
My way of thinking is that if you claim something novel you should be
able to prove it instead of imagining that the way to establish it as a
fact it to claim it over and over and over and over and over and then
try to browbeat other people into believing you.
> Simply, your
> brain is not able to function properly under such a monstrous amount
> of useless information.
My brain is still waiting for you to provide something worth
comprehending: a proof. Evidence. A rational demonstration. My brain
understands perfectly well what you're *claiming*. I don't *believe* you
and if you care to convince me you have to do more than try a hundred
different ways of insulting me into believing you.
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> My brain is still waiting for you to provide something worth
> comprehending: a proof.
OK. Let's see where the English word "whole" came from? I hope you
know the etymology of that word. English whole is the cognate of the
Serbian/Slavic celo (whole), Greek όλος (all) and Latin solidus. The
common denominator for all these words is the ur-basis Gon-Bel-Gon
("round heap"). You have already learned that words heap, cumulus,
gomila, tumulus, tomb, humus, zemlja, compono, collect, imanje, home,
domaćin, dominus etc., originally sprang from the Gon-Bel-Gon ur-
syllabic combination. Of course, the word "combine" also belong to the
same, above-mentioned group.
The Serbo-Slavic adverb 'okolo' (around, about) is the word that has
lost its initial velar/glottal k/h (from h/okolo) and it shows that
this word is equal to Greek κύκλος (circle; Lat. ciclus cycle).
Serbian okolo (Russ. около; Cz. okolo) is closely related to other
Serbian words - oblina (a curved area) and za-obljen (round, oval) On
the other side, there is the Serbian noun 'okolina' (surrounding; from
h/okolina - Gon-Gon-Bel-Gon) that could be compared to Serb.
'oblast' (area, district; cf. Lat. plaga district; Russ. област; Cz.
oblast). We can see that the primeval Gon-Bel-Gon basis has been
subjected to many of phonetic and morpho-syntactic processes:
adaptation, erosion, fusion, elision, affixation, and permutation.
In this place, it would be interesting to mention the Hungarian word
'ablak', which means "window". Ablak sounds almost the same as Serbian
oblak (cloud). What happened here? Is it possible that these two words
are related? Is ablak (window) an original finno-ugric word? Or it
belongs to IE vocabulary, as a Slavic loanword? First, let us compare
Latin canalis (pipe, groove, channel; cf. Lat. canna reed) and Serbian
okno (window); in Serbian, 'okno' also means shaft or manhole, hole.
All the above words are telling us that Slavic okno (window; Skt.
jālaka) is a "hole" in the wall, earth, or in any other solid
structure.
Slovak language has the words oblok (window) and oblak (cloud) as well
as oblúk (arc; cf. Serb. luk /arc/; oluk /spout, waste-pipe, gutter/).
Now, if we compare Eng cave/cable with Serb. šuplje/šupljina (hollow;
cf. Lat. spelunca /cave/, Serb. špilja /cave/) we are going to see
that all these words are born from the Gon-Bel-Gon basis. English
cable is closely related to canal (channel), hole, hallow and cave
(cf. Russ. глубина; Cz. hlubina deepness) and to cannabis (cf. Serb.
konop/ac rope; konoplja hemp; snoplje bundle; okupljati gather,
assemble; Lat. capio, occupo; Ger. nehmen /to take/; Serb. uzimanje /
taking/).
DV
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> > Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
> > English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
> > Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?
> Are you able to grasp that "are you able to grasp", for the umpteenth
> time, doesn't prove anything? Are you able to grasp that one more time
> you are making a claim without proof?
My question is simple. There are three possibilities: 1) you can see
that zamelen and collect are related 2) you can see that zamelen and
collect are unrelated 3) you can not determine whether the words
zamelen and collect are related or unrelated.
DV
Peter T. Daniels
> On Apr 22, 9:31 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
> > My brain is still waiting for you to provide something worth
> > comprehending: a proof.
>
> OK. Let's see where the English word "whole" came from? I hope you
> know the etymology of that word. English whole is the cognate of the
> Serbian/Slavic celo (whole), Greek όλος (all) and Latin solidus. The
> common denominator for all these words is the ur-basis Gon-Bel-Gon
> ("round heap").
Show that.
Demonstrate that the IE root underlying those words is derived from
Gon-Bel-Gon.
Peter T. Daniels
The answer is (3).
Explain why you believe that they are related.
Craoi...@gmail.com
> On Apr 9, 12:45 pm, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:6484e7203a57012a...@pseudo.borked.net...
>
> > > On Apr 8, 4:42 pm, Harlan Messinger
> > > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > You're like a guy who takes a date to an expensive restaurant to impress
> > > > her and at the end of the meal asks her if she has enough money with her
> > > > to pay for the meal, while still expecting to get laid.
>
> > > Is he going to get lucky or not? We're all dying to find out.
>
> > Let's wait and see what Heidi has to say.
>
> What about your intelligent wife who chose a monkey to be her low-fool
> husband?
> What price is she willing to pay to get properly laid?
>
> DV
You are a very bad man, Dushan.
António Marques
I've been following these exchanges with increasing puzzlement.
It seems to me that Duscian in earnest thinks that 'X is the cognate of
Y', 'common denominator for all these words is Z', and their like *are*
the demonstrations of something. He seems completely unaware of the
meaning of demonstration - that is, the reasoning which departs from
basic facts and uses implicature to establish others - and instead think
that 'demonstrate' means 'present some analogy of form'.
Bearing this in mind, it seems completely futile to try to reason with
him; he doesn't know how to parse counter-arguments.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Peter T. Daniels
I don't offer counterarguments because there's no argument to counter.
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 22, 9:31 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
>> My brain is still waiting for you to provide something worth
>> comprehending: a proof.
>
> OK. Let's see where the English word "whole" came from? I hope you
> know the etymology of that word.
I hope you know it, as opposed to making it up without proof. Let's see:
> English whole is the cognate of the
> Serbian/Slavic celo (whole),
Is it? Prove it.
> Greek όλος (all) and Latin solidus.
Those seem plausible based on information I already have.
> The
> common denominator for all these words is the ur-basis Gon-Bel-Gon
> ("round heap").
You just destroyed your proof by introducing an element that no one but
you believes and that you haven't proved.
> You have already learned that words heap, cumulus,
> gomila, tumulus, tomb, humus, zemlja, compono, collect, imanje, home,
> domaćin, dominus etc., originally sprang from the Gon-Bel-Gon ur-
> syllabic combination.
I haven't "learned" any such thing. At most, I've seen you claim it.
> Of course, the word "combine" also belong to the
> same, above-mentioned group.
Proof by "of course"?
> The Serbo-Slavic adverb 'okolo' (around, about) is the word that has
> lost its initial velar/glottal k/h (from h/okolo)
How do you know that?
> and it shows that
> this word is equal to Greek κύκλος (circle; Lat. ciclus cycle).
How does it show that?
> Serbian okolo (Russ. около; Cz. okolo) is closely related to other
> Serbian words - oblina (a curved area) and za-obljen (round, oval)
Prove it.
> On
> the other side, there is the Serbian noun 'okolina' (surrounding; from
> h/okolina - Gon-Gon-Bel-Gon) that could be compared to Serb.
> 'oblast' (area, district; cf. Lat. plaga district; Russ. област; Cz.
> oblast).
Can it be? Why, because you say so?
> We can see that the primeval Gon-Bel-Gon basis has been
> subjected to many of phonetic and morpho-syntactic processes:
> adaptation, erosion, fusion, elision, affixation, and permutation.
Because you say so?
> In this place, it would be interesting to mention the Hungarian word
> 'ablak', which means "window". Ablak sounds almost the same as Serbian
> oblak (cloud). What happened here? Is it possible that these two words
> are related? Is ablak (window) an original finno-ugric word? Or it
> belongs to IE vocabulary, as a Slavic loanword? First, let us compare
> Latin canalis (pipe, groove, channel; cf. Lat. canna reed) and Serbian
> okno (window); in Serbian, 'okno' also means shaft or manhole, hole.
> All the above words are telling us that Slavic okno (window; Skt.
> jālaka) is a "hole" in the wall, earth, or in any other solid
> structure.
O master of digression, I see no proof in any of the above, nor even any
semblance of relatedness between one sentence and the next.
> Slovak language has the words oblok (window) and oblak (cloud) as well
> as oblúk (arc; cf. Serb. luk /arc/; oluk /spout, waste-pipe, gutter/).
> Now, if we compare Eng cave/cable with Serb. šuplje/šupljina (hollow;
> cf. Lat. spelunca /cave/, Serb. špilja /cave/) we are going to see
> that all these words are born from the Gon-Bel-Gon basis.
We see no such thing. All we see you is saying "compare, compare,
compare" without indicating why or what such a comparison shows, or why
it shows it, or what it has to do with the original problem.
> English
> cable is closely related to canal (channel), hole, hallow and cave
Because you say so? And what does this have to do with any of the preceding?
> (cf. Russ. глубина; Cz. hlubina deepness) and to cannabis (cf. Serb.
> konop/ac rope; konoplja hemp; snoplje bundle; okupljati gather,
> assemble; Lat. capio, occupo; Ger. nehmen /to take/; Serb. uzimanje /
> taking/).
You seem to have completely forgotten that the original problem you
posed was the origin of the word "whole".
Would you please learn what a proof is? You seem certain that if you
just ramble and free-associate long enough, that somewhere within your
scribblings will magically appear a proof. Even if we added a thousand
monkeys with a thousand keyboards to your quest following this approach,
it would be trillions of years before something that is actually a proof
might coincidentally emerge from the flotsam and jetsam. It would be
much easier if you learned what a proof *is* and then started writing
proofs instead of windy expositions that aren't proofs.
Harlan Messinger
> On Apr 22, 7:06 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
>>> Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
>>> English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
>>> Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?
>
>> Are you able to grasp that "are you able to grasp", for the umpteenth
>> time, doesn't prove anything? Are you able to grasp that one more time
>> you are making a claim without proof?
>
> My question is simple. There are three possibilities: 1) you can see
> that zamelen and collect are related
If it were just a matter of "seeing" it, then what would we need you
for, in your mind? You're claiming it, we *don't* see it--or even if we
do "see" it, we're aware that not everything that *looks* related *is*
related, and we endlessly await from you a proof.
> 2) you can see that zamelen and
> collect are unrelated 3) you can not determine whether the words
> zamelen and collect are related or unrelated.
Stop playing games and prove whatever it is you're claiming to be true.
António Marques
> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 7:06 pm, Harlan Messinger
>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>> Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
>>>> English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
>>>> Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?
>>
>>> Are you able to grasp that "are you able to grasp", for the umpteenth
>>> time, doesn't prove anything? Are you able to grasp that one more time
>>> you are making a claim without proof?
>>
>> My question is simple. There are three possibilities: 1) you can see
>> that zamelen and collect are related
>
> If it were just a matter of "seeing" it, then what would we need you
> for, in your mind?
To bring it to your attention. Honestly, I think that's the way Duscian
sees it.
--
António Marques
* This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase *
anal...@hotmail.com
As long as we are debating roots going back as far back as the
putative times when PIE was spoken - it seems to me that the standard
model, Dusan's model and Gnaedinger's model are only competing
theories with no conceivable (with presently available evidence) way
of proof or disproof.
The standard model has been worked on for centuries and has the weight
of scholarship behind it but that means exactly that - that it is
accepted by most linguistics scholars.
If only Dusan and/or Gnaedinger would try to derive proto-romance from
the descended Romance languages using their respective theories - then
their derived roots can actually be compared against the predictions
of the standard model.
Until then we'll only see inconclusive bickering.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> On Apr 23, 11:41 am, Harlan Messinger
>
>
>
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Apparently you still have no idea what you are talking about.