_______________________________________
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist_admin/message/395
Re: [tied] Slavic placenames
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/29794
19-01-04 12:32, andelkod wrote:
> Amateur question regarding slavic root *lub or *lob meaning skull,
> cranium (lubanja, lobanja) and from the same root also 'lubenica'
> (watermellon) .
> The meaning can be even an exposed and visible hill.
> So, placenames like Lubenik, Lubenice, Lubnica, Lubenka, Lubyanka,
> and even Ljubljana and Ljubelj, I suspect, can be connected with this
> root (locations with exposed and visible hill).
> Placenames like Lomnica could also be result of development from
> Lobnica and Lovnik from Lobnik.
> Am I wrong?
You're confusing several different etymological bases, such as *lUbU ~
*lUbI 'head, skull', *lubU 'bast, strip of wood or bark', *ljubiti
'love', and *lomiti 'break'. No connections, just similarity.
Piotr
_______________________________________________
Piotr,
I found your above post by chance (Google) and I must admit that I was
deeply disappointed when reading those lines of your total ignorance.
Is it possible that you are unable to grasp that all the above words
are derived from the primeval Gon-Bel-Gon basis (Serbo-Slavic oblo
round; Russ. около, об; Cz. oble; Pol. pełny; Slavic *pln; Serb.
obilan => p/o/ln => pun full). Can you not see that Slavic *lob is
related to Latin globus and Serb. oblina (roundness; from h/oblina;
cf. Pol. powłoka, Serb.. obloga coat, covering); metathesis - oblog
(cover, coating) => oklop (armor, shield, shell, mail). Do you know
why the ball is named piłka in Polish and why and how is it related to
Serbian lopta (ball) and lubenica (watermelon) ?
Slavic verb ljubiti (kiss, love; from oblo-biti => obli-vati suffuse
=> ob-ljubiti love, kiss, intercourse; cf. copulate, coupled) is also
derived from the words like oblak (cloud), oblina (roundness) and
obloga (coating, covering); i.e. from the above mentioned ur-basis
(Gon-Bel-Gon) . Unusual, is it not? Love, globe, lobanja (skull),
lubenica (watermelon) , lomiti (break) - all is born from the same Gon-
Bel-Gon "womb"!
Would you like me to tell you how it happened... precisely? ;-)
DV
> Is it possible that you are unable to grasp that all the above words
> are derived from the primeval Gon-Bel-Gon basis (Serbo-Slavic oblo
> round; Russ. около, об; Cz. oble; Pol. pełny; Slavic *pln; Serb.
> obilan => p/o/ln => pun full). Can you not see that Slavic *lob is
> related to Latin globus and Serb. oblina (roundness; from h/oblina;
> cf. Pol. powłoka, Serb.. obloga coat, covering); metathesis - oblog
> (cover, coating) => oklop (armor, shield, shell, mail). Do you know
> why the ball is named piłka in Polish and why and how is it related to
> Serbian lopta (ball) and lubenica (watermelon) ?
>
> Slavic verb ljubiti (kiss, love; from oblo-biti => obli-vati suffuse
> => ob-ljubiti love, kiss, intercourse; cf. copulate, coupled) is also
> derived from the words like oblak (cloud), oblina (roundness) and
> obloga (coating, covering); i.e. from the above mentioned ur-basis
> (Gon-Bel-Gon) . Unusual, is it not? Love, globe, lobanja (skull),
> lubenica (watermelon) , lomiti (break) - all is born from the same Gon-
> Bel-Gon "womb"!
>
> Would you like me to tell you how it happened... precisely? ;-)
Well -- yes.
We've been asking you to do that for months if not years, and you
never have done yet.
He is unable to grasp it in the same sense that he is unable to grasp
that the moon is made of cheese.
Just trying to present the same in a graphic form
http://vukotic.atspace.com/copu.htm
DV
Very funny, indeed! ;-)
DV
Was that supposed to be you telling us precisely how it happened?
So *that's* how it works! I'll bel dog-gon'ed!
Until now, I thought you were just trying to put us on.
Drats! I am missing on all the fun you seem to be having.
All I get is "The page cannot be displayed".
I guess, there's great demand for this page of "reveal-all-at-last"
making the vukotic.atspace.com server completely overloaded.
pjk
Probably it has been classified as porn, it being about how to
copulate xurbelgonically.
True, nevertheless.
> trying to present the same in a graphic formhttp://vukotic.atspace.com/copu.htm
> Was that supposed to be you telling us precisely how it happened?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I hope now you are able to understand that all the Serbian words on
this graphic are derived from the Gon-Bel-Gon (or Bel-Gon) ur-basis.
It starts from the heaven (nebo) and cloud (oblak) via kaplja (drop)
to coast (obala), vlaga (vetness) and voda (water). All is influenced
by the round form of the sun (oblo, oblina round). Similar is in other
IE languages.
I think you are going to be surprised if I say that English cloud and
clod are the words closely related to Ger. Wolke and Serbian oblak
(cloud; cf. Serb. kolut a round piece of something, hoop; klada stump,
lumber).
English cloud is related to Serbo-Slavic oblak (cloud) in the same way
as hill is related to Homolje (gomila, cumulus, heap; hlum. hum) or
even glava/glavica (head, the top of a hill; Slavic galava is
metathesis of h/oblo round; Gr. κεφαλή; Lat. globo = Serb. h/oblo).
Slavic lubanja (from hlobanja => globanja => glava) is in fact the
same word as Latin globus. Hence you can see that Slavic lubenica
(watermelon) was named like that in accordance with its round form
{cf. Slavic jablaka (apple) from h/oblo (round), Serb. kruška (pear),
from krug (circle)}.
You probably know that bath or spa is balneum in Latin and in Serbian
it is banja. The Serbian verb banjati means "to bath, bathe" and it is
closely related to the Serbian words oblak and kapljanje (dribble);
oblak came from gnoblak => goblak => oblak and kaplja (drop) from
gnabla = gabla; cf. Serb. obliti suffuse; h/obliti => kapljati (to
drip). Serbian banja (bath) and banjanje (bathing) is coming from the
verb kupanje, i.e. from the above g/oblak (cloud) and kapljanje
(dripping).
If we add to the above the Serbian verb ovlažiti (from vlaga vetness;
ovlažen wet; from g/oblagen) we are going to understand why the whole
"aquatic" chain of words is related in Serbian: oblak (cloud), kaplja
(drop), kupanje (bathe), ovlažiti (to wet; vlaga wetness). Finally,
there is relatedness between Slavic voda and Latin aqua through the
Serbian verbs okupati (bathe) and ukuvati (boil). Of course, there we
can make other comparisons as among the words like Serbian okovati (to
fetter, shackle), uhvatiti (catch) and Latin occupo -are (occupy),
habeo (have), capio and a whole bunch of words I was talking about in
one of my earlier posts.
The English word love is a counterpart to Serbian ljubav (love) and
the Serbian verb ljubiti (to kiss, love). In this case (as I have
shown in my graphic), ljubiti is aphereses of obljubiti (copulate; as
you see "copulate/coupling" also comes from Gon-Bel-Gon basis; Serb.
oblegnuti copulate, from h/oble-gnuti). Not accidentally, the Serbian
verbs obljubiti and oblegnuti (both with the meaning "copulate") are
very close phonetically to the other Serbian verbs: oblivati/oblinuti
(suffuse, flood) ond oblagati (to coat, cover). Beside obljubiti,
there is the Serbian verb oblepiti (to stick around, to glue), from
which the Slavic *lubU (strip of wood or bark; Serb. oljupina); cf.
Serb. pri-ljubiti (stick together), pri-lepiti (to glue together).
Bark of tree is a protective covering of the woody stems and it is
"glued" (Serb. lepiti to glue) to the trunk. We need no big brain to
grasp why ljubiti (kiss) is almost the same as lepiti (glue) and both
are close to uljubiti (to kiss inward) and ulubiti (bulge inward).
Later on, ulubiti (bulge inward) became ulomiti (to break; /b/ to /m/
sound change) or lomiti (break).
DV
We have for a long time been able to understand, that you are a very
bad man.
In the same sense that he understands that the moon is made of cheese.
In other words, he understands that it's an imaginary tale.
If Peter had asked for an advocate I doubt he would have chosen a
monkey.
DV
In other words, you don't have a constructive response.
No, you are the one who has a destructive approach to the matter I’ve
been trying to demonstrate here.
DV
<sigh> For the umpteenth time, you aren't demonstrating anything here
because you aren't following any kind of systematic approach and you
assume that anything that looks even vaguely similar is magically
related. Pointing that fact out isn't destructive, because you haven't
constructed anything. At worst, I'm destroying your attempts to explain
etymologies to innocent people in terms of your imaginary inventions.
Just babbling... Why don't you try to be concrete? Anyone can say,
"everything is wrong", without presenting any counter-argument.
DV
> > >>>>>> trying to present the same in a graphic formhttp://vukotic.atspace.com/copu.htm
> > >>>>>> Was that supposed to be you telling us precisely how it happened?-
> > >>>>> I hope now you are able to understand that all the Serbian words on
> > >>>>> this graphic are derived from the Gon-Bel-Gon (or Bel-Gon) ur-basis.
> > >>>> In the same sense that he understands that the moon is made of cheese.
> > >>>> In other words, he understands that it's an imaginary tale.
> > >>> If Peter had asked for an advocate I doubt he would have chosen a
> > >>> monkey.
> > >> In other words, you don't have a constructive response.
> > > No, you are the one who has a destructive approach to the matter Iÿve
> > > been trying to demonstrate here.
You haven't "tried to demonstrate" a damn thing. All you do is "hope
we are able to understand," without providing any hint of what there
is to understand.
> > <sigh> For the umpteenth time, you aren't demonstrating anything here
> > because you aren't following any kind of systematic approach and you
> > assume that anything that looks even vaguely similar is magically
> > related. Pointing that fact out isn't destructive, because you haven't
> > constructed anything. At worst, I'm destroying your attempts to explain
> > etymologies to innocent people in terms of your imaginary inventions.-
> Just babbling... Why don't you try to be concrete? Anyone can say,
> "everything is wrong", without presenting any counter-argument.
You haven't presented any argument to counter.
If your conclusions don't follow from their premises, then they don't
follow from your premises. I don't have to keep proving this every
single time I point out that your system is fictional. Go back and read
all the explanations and counterexamples you've already been given. Is
your head a complete sieve? Or do you think that counterarguments expire
after 24 hours and have to be administered anew every day?
All the words I mentioned here are derived from the agglutinated
GO(N)BELGON form:
OBLINA (roundness; from G(N)OBLIGNA).
OBLAK (cloud; from GNOBLAK, Ger. WOLKEN),
NEBESA (sky; from GNEBELGA; Ger. NEBEL, NEBULA; Lat. G/NOBLES),
KAPLJANJE (dribble; from GNABLJANJE),
KUPANJE (bath; from G(N)UBLANJE; Serb. BANJA spa; Lat. BALNEUM),
OVLAŽEN (wet; from (G)OBLAGEN),
OBLINUTI (flood, suffuse; from GO(N)BLIGNUTI; Lat. INLUVIES from
GINBLUVIEG = Serb. OBLIVANJE from GONBLIVAGNE) etc.
What else can I do if you are unable to comprehend what I am talking
about? This is not too complicated to understand. Perhaps, you are
not familiar with some of the Slavic languages; if so, this may be a
"pueblo español" for you. :-)
DV
> > > <sigh> For the umpteenth time, you aren't demonstrating anything here
> > > because you aren't following any kind of systematic approach and you
> > > assume that anything that looks even vaguely similar is magically
> > > related. Pointing that fact out isn't destructive, because you haven't
> > > constructed anything. At worst, I'm destroying your attempts to explain
> > > etymologies to innocent people in terms of your imaginary inventions.-
> > Just babbling... Why don't you try to be concrete? Anyone can say,
> > "everything is wrong", without presenting any counter-argument.
>
> You haven't presented any argument to counter.-
You are talking nonsense! What counterexamples? Remind me, please...
would you mind mentioning just a single one?
DV
> Is your head a complete sieve?
>Or do you think that counterarguments expire
> after 24 hours and have to be administered anew every day?- Hide quoted text -
No, they aren't.
>
> OBLINA (roundness; from G(N)OBLIGNA).
> OBLAK (cloud; from GNOBLAK, Ger. WOLKEN),
> NEBESA (sky; from GNEBELGA; Ger. NEBEL, NEBULA; Lat. G/NOBLES),
> KAPLJANJE (dribble; from GNABLJANJE),
> KUPANJE (bath; from G(N)UBLANJE; Serb. BANJA spa; Lat. BALNEUM),
> OVLAŽEN (wet; from (G)OBLAGEN),
> OBLINUTI (flood, suffuse; from GO(N)BLIGNUTI; Lat. INLUVIES from
> GINBLUVIEG = Serb. OBLIVANJE from GONBLIVAGNE) etc.
>
> What else can I do if you are unable to comprehend what I am talking
> about? This is not too complicated to understand.
Why are you so hopelessly unable to comprehend that THERE IS NO SUCH
THING AS A "GO(N)BELGON FORM", agglutinated or otherwise. This is not
too complicated to understand.
Fine, your head IS a sieve.
> Remind me, please...
> would you mind mentioning just a single one?
If I told you, you'd just forget it again in five minutes, so what's the
point?
The point is that you have never ever used any counterexample or
counterargument in our previous discussions/disputes.
DV
I presume you are adding this answer to the "existing" list of your
"numerous counterarguments"? THERE IS NO SUCH THING (capitalized!)
What an amazing ability of super-power(foolish) inductive reasoning!
DV
DV
No, the counterarguments are already there. If you make something up or
work it out by extremely faulty reasoning, then it's an extremely good
bet that it isn't real, and when so many of the conclusions you draw
from it are refuted by real-world evidence, it follows that there is no
such thing. Q.E.D.
It may be your point, and that's just too bad if you have the
recollection of a houseplant.
First, show how each of those "from"s is derived (regularly) from
"BO(N)BELGON" (whatever that is); then show how each of your words is
derived (regularly) from those "from"s.
> > > > <sigh> For the umpteenth time, you aren't demonstrating anything here
> > > > because you aren't following any kind of systematic approach and you
> > > > assume that anything that looks even vaguely similar is magically
> > > > related. Pointing that fact out isn't destructive, because you haven't
> > > > constructed anything. At worst, I'm destroying your attempts to explain
> > > > etymologies to innocent people in terms of your imaginary inventions.-
> > > Just babbling... Why don't you try to be concrete? Anyone can say,
> > > "everything is wrong", without presenting any counter-argument.
>
> > You haven't presented any argument to counter.--
Assertion is not argument.
Serb. OBLINA (roundness) from GNOBLINA by apheresis; cf. Eng, KNOB (a
circular rounded projection or protuberance), KNOLL (hill-top), Old.
Norse KNYFILL, Ger. GIPFEL, KOPF, KNOPF.
OBLAK (cloud) from GNOBLAK (apheresis) akin to Serbian OBLOG, OBLOGA
(coat, covering); OBLEKA (cloth) cf. Latin NUBO (to cover, veil),
NEBULA (cloud).
In addition you can see that Serb. KAPLJA originated from GNOBLAK,
OBLAK (cloud), NEBO (sky); hence Serb. adj. NAVLAŽEN (soaked, wet;
from GNABLAGEN, omission of the initial /g/, /b/ to /v/ sound change
in the second syllable, palatalisation /g/ to /ž/, third syllable);
cf. HUMIDUS, UVIDUS (humid, vet).
If you have understand the above explanation we may continue our
"experiment" with more difficult examples :-)
DV
Well, you won't admit that you cannot find any counterexample!
DV
My reasoning is correct and I do not make anything up. As I told you
many times before: I know exactly what I am talking about.
DV
The number of times your remarks have contradicted reality says otherwise.
Compare WHAT about these words? "Compare" is not an argument when you
don't say what you're comparing. Besides, what does what happened among
the Germanic languages have to do with demonstrating a regular sound
change in Serbian? (Hint: the answer is "nothing".)
> OBLAK (cloud) from GNOBLAK (apheresis) akin to Serbian OBLOG, OBLOGA
> (coat, covering); OBLEKA (cloth) cf. Latin NUBO (to cover, veil),
> NEBULA (cloud).
>
> In addition you can see that Serb. KAPLJA originated from GNOBLAK,
> OBLAK (cloud), NEBO (sky);
We can? Just because you say so?
This is how all your reasoning goes. Enough said.
"Find" them? For months I and others have been explaining to you the
flaws in your reasoning. If you suddenly can't recall all the
discussions people have been having with you, there isn't anything I can
do about it.
Your "the number of times" has nothing to do with the reality. Which
of my "incriminated" remarks "contradicted reality"? If there was any
"otherwise" what that "otherwise" might looked like?
DV
DV
No one has ever found any flaw in my reasoning. My statements (logical
arguments) are being rejected in general, and, you must admit, such an
"en gros" refutation cannot be taken seriously.
DV
Not accidentally, there are Serbian words NA-OBLAČEN (cloudy), akin to
NAVLAŽEN (wet, soaked); Serb. OBLAK (cloud) => VLAGA (wetness); it
means that KAPLJA (drop) is NAVLAŽENA (wet; from GNABLAGNE = KAPLJANJE
(dribble).
Read again every line and, if you are not a moron, you will be able to
understand what the "wet reality" looks like.
DV
As usual, this is all supposed to be true just because you say so.
>
> Read again every line and, if you are not a moron, you will be able to
> understand what the "wet reality" looks like.
As usual, I understand that you think you can take superficial
resemblances and decree them to be proof of relatedness without
demonstrating that the similarities are instances of a regular sound
change. I've given you examples that show why this is insufficient, I've
explained to you why this reasoning is unsound, and so have others. Your
reasoning is flawed and your explanations are inadequate, period.
Calling me a moron doesn't change that.
When they are wrong in the general, yes. "X and Y look slightly like
each other" is, in the general, never sufficient to demonstrate a
relationship between X and Y. And you have also been given lots of
specifics, particularly when, your "proof" has contradicted the actual,
attested origin of one or more of the words involved.
> and, you must admit, such an
> "en gros" refutation cannot be taken seriously.
Not at all. Premises are one thing, but when a general form of reasoning
is flawed, it is always flawed, always has been flawed, and always will
be flawed. Reasoning "A is C and B is C, therefore A is B" will always
be flawed. Reasoning "A unless B, and B, therefore not A" will always be
flawed. "A has one or two sounds in common with B and they have vaguely
related meanings, therefore, they are related" will always be flawed.
It doesn't matter how different objects you apply bad reasoning to, it
will always be bad reasoning.
In the above example I explained everything: apheresis, regular sound
changes, palatalisation as well as undisputed semantic values of these
words.
> change. I've given you examples that show why this is insufficient, I've
> explained to you why this reasoning is unsound, and so have others. Your
> reasoning is flawed and your explanations are inadequate, period.
> Calling me a moron doesn't change that.
You haven't explained anything and you haven't given a single example,
which could coroborate the thesis about my "unsound reasoning". Why
don't you stop making a fool of yourself and accept the facts?
DV
You haven't shown anything about regular sound changes. All you did was
show that a particular type of sound change is known to occur in other
languages. You didn't show any systematic change of that sort within one
particular language.
>
>> change. I've given you examples that show why this is insufficient, I've
>> explained to you why this reasoning is unsound, and so have others. Your
>> reasoning is flawed and your explanations are inadequate, period.
>> Calling me a moron doesn't change that.
>
> You haven't explained anything and you haven't given a single example,
> which could coroborate the thesis about my "unsound reasoning".
Then you haven't been reading what I've said. Use Google if you can't
remember.
> Why
> don't you stop making a fool of yourself and accept the facts?
The facts are that your reasoning is flawed, your memory is flawed, and
your etymologies are often flawed.
> DV
Often? Not always? :-)
DV
I never consider "vaguely related meanings" and there is nothing like
that in my treatises. No one need to know anything about historical
linguistic to see that oblak (cloud), kaplja (drop) and vlaga
(vetness) are not "vagely" but intrinsically interrelated.
DV
ROFL! Like hell you don't.
> and there is nothing like
> that in my treatises. No one need to know anything about historical
> linguistic to see that oblak (cloud), kaplja (drop) and vlaga
> (vetness) are not "vagely" but intrinsically interrelated.
ROFL! Yeah, "oblak", "kaplja" and "vlaga" look SO much alike. The
similarities just leap off the screen.
No, sometimes two words that you think are related, really *are*
related. A problem is that there is nothing in your approach that
distinguishes those cases from the cases where your relationship claims
are wrong, because your approach is insufficient to make that determination.
Let's put it this way: Not one of your arguments I've ever seen has
looked anything like:
German "ei" ~ Dutch "ee" ~ English "o"
eins/een/one
zwei/twee/two
Bein/been/bone
Stein/stein/stone
Meist/meest/most
Geist/geest/ghost
Kleid/kleed/cloth
or this:
Latin initial "pl", "cl", "fl" > Spanish initial "ll", Portuguese
initial "ch"
planum/llano/chão
pluvere/llover/chover
plenum/lleno/cheio
plorare/llorar/chorar
plicare/llegar/chegar
clamare/llamar/chamar
clavo/llave/chave
flamma/llama/chama
An explanation of this latter sound correspondence that resembles your
usual contributions would read like:
'See if you are able to grasp that Spanish "llover" is related to
Portuguese "chover". Compare Latin "labium" ("lip") to English
"chapstick" (substance that's spread on the lips). Also compare
"chapstick" with "spit" (thing that comes between the lips), "chin",
"cheek" and "llorar" (crying, thing that comes out of the eyes).'
The conclusion would be true, but this reasoning wouldn't lead to it.
It's a mess, and it's the way all your rambling "demonstrations" work.
You are just continuing to show a tragic inability to understand that
some words can be related one to another even if they are phonetically
quite different. For instance (I've already been talking about it):
Serb. imati and English have; Serb. oblak, Ger. Himmel etc.
DV
Yes, of course they can. But if they are related, it isn't just because
you say so.
In this case, YOU'RE the one who wrote, "No one need know anything about
historical linguistic to see that oblak, ... kaplja, ... and vlaga ...
are no 'vaguely' but intrinsically related." So now, according to you,
they are "phonetically quite different", yet even without knowing
"anything about historic linguistic [sic]" it is supposed to be so
obvious that these words are related that you're ready to call someone a
moron for not realizing it without explanation. What this all boils down
to, once again, is that we are supposed to accept that these words are
related, not because they look alike, not because we have any basis in
historical linguistics for concluding that they're related, but because
you say so.
> For instance (I've already been talking about it):
> Serb. imati and English have; Serb. oblak, Ger. Himmel etc.
Instance of what? AGAIN you are claiming a relationship between words
"because I say so".
As I pointed out weeks ago, he is not interested in the kind of
relationships that linguists deal with. He is only interested in
semantic similarity.
> > For instance (I've already been talking about it):
> > Serb. imati and English have; Serb. oblak, Ger. Himmel etc.
>
> Instance of what? AGAIN you are claiming a relationship between words
> "because I say so".-
When I told "intrinsically" I thought about clear semantic (and
logical) relation among those words: oblak (cloud), kaplja (drop),
vlaga (wetness).
DV
Could you point out what is wrong (unclear) in the following
explanation?
______________________________
Serb. OBLINA (roundness) from GNOBLINA by apheresis; cf. Eng, KNOB (a
circular rounded projection or protuberance), KNOLL (hill-top), Old.
Norse KNYFILL, Ger. GIPFEL, KOPF, KNOPF.
OBLAK (cloud) from GNOBLAK (apheresis) akin to Serbian OBLOG, OBLOGA
(coat, covering); OBLEKA (cloth) cf. Latin NUBO (to cover, veil),
NEBULA (cloud).
In addition you can see that Serb. KAPLJA originated from GNOBLAK,
OBLAK (cloud), NEBO (sky); hence Serb. adj. NAVLAŽEN (soaked, wet;
from GNABLAGEN, omission of the initial /g/, /b/ to /v/ sound change
in the second syllable, palatalisation /g/ to /ž/, third syllable);
cf. HUMIDUS, UVIDUS (humid, vet).
_______________________________
Lat. humidus is related to Serb. umiti (to wash, lave); Lat. uvidus is
related to humidus (umidus), do you no why and how? All these words
are derived from the Gon-Bel-Gon basis or the H/obligon agglutination:
Serb. obli-gnuti => oblinuti (suffuse, flood) => obliti (suffuse) =>
oMbliti (nasalisation) => umiti (wash, lave).
Above change is regular and there are many similar examples (haben =
imati; oblak =Himmel etc.). The rule you are asking for is about to
be written; I am working on it.
DV
Could you point out what is wrong (unclear) in the following
Oh. Well, then it's completely unclear what conclusion you meant to be
drawn from that. They are "related" semantically in the same way that
"cloud", "drop", and "wetness" are. But "cloud", "drop", and "wetness"
all have completely different origins. So, what exactly is your point
supposed to be?
You are absolutely right about "cloud" and "drop"; these two words are
completely unrelated. On the other side, "cloud" and "wetnes" are
indirectly related via their common 'aquatic' (gonbelgonic)
properties.
Serbian oblak, kaplja and vlaga are closely related, not just
semantically but morphologically and phonetically too.
DV
Because you say so?
> Serbian oblak, kaplja and vlaga are closely related, not just
> semantically but morphologically and phonetically too.
Because you say so?
No, but because it is so in reality.
DV
You still haven't given a demonstration of your claim. So far the only
reason you've given to believe it is because you say so.
> > No, but because it is so in reality.
>
> You still haven't given a demonstration of your claim. So far the only
> reason you've given to believe it is because you say so.-
What is this (below) if not a demonstration of my "belgonic"
statments? Try to point out what is wrong in the following "aquatic"
explanation?
It's a long string of words that claim them to be related without
demonstrating any regular sound change that would explain these
developments over time
> _______________________
>
> Serb. OBLINA (roundness) from GNOBLINA by apheresis; cf. Eng, KNOB (a
> circular rounded projection or protuberance), KNOLL (hill-top), Old.
> Norse KNYFILL, Ger. GIPFEL, KOPF, KNOPF.
I already told you: the issue is not whether a particular sound change
has ever happened in the history of recorded language, the issue is
whether you can demonstrate that that sound change is a REGULAR SOUND
CHANGE that occurred in the language you are discussing.
> OBLAK (cloud) from GNOBLAK (apheresis) akin to Serbian OBLOG, OBLOGA
> (coat, covering); OBLEKA (cloth) cf. Latin NUBO (to cover, veil),
> NEBULA (cloud).
Another string of words with undemonstrated claims that a bunch of words
are related to each other and another instruction to "cf." when there
isn't anything comparable, as though the instruction "Compare!" is
evidence all by itself.
>
> In addition you can see that Serb. KAPLJA originated from GNOBLAK,
> OBLAK (cloud), NEBO (sky); hence Serb. adj. NAVLAŽEN (soaked, wet;
> from GNABLAGEN, omission of the initial /g/, /b/ to /v/ sound change
> in the second syllable, palatalisation /g/ to /ž/, third syllable);
> cf. HUMIDUS, UVIDUS (humid, vet).
Once AGAIN, your "proof" consists of saying "you can see" when the whole
point is that I don't see it, and I'm still waiting for your to prove it.
Do you really not understand the difference between a claim and a
demonstration? Or do you think that if you chain enough unsupported
claims together, then suddenly they become a demonstration?
Sorry, all you have here is a long string of unsupported claims.
> _______________________________
>
>
> Lat. humidus is related to Serb. umiti (to wash, lave); Lat. uvidus
> is
> related to humidus (umidus), do you no why and how? All these words
> are derived from the Gon-Bel-Gon basis or the H/obligon
> agglutination:
> Serb. obli-gnuti => oblinuti (suffuse, flood) => obliti (suffuse) =>
> oMbliti (nasalisation) => umiti (wash, lave).
Because you say so?
> Above change is regular and there are many similar examples (haben =
> imati; oblak =Himmel etc.).
Haben/imati and oblak/Himmel? These two pairs aren't even going in the
same direction--one purports to be from German to Serbian, the other
from Serbian to German. How do you think they demonstrate ANYTHING? When
you compare things, they have to be COMPARABLE.
> The rule you are asking for is about to
> be written; I am working on it.
Are you capable of creating a presentation like the two sample ones I
gave you the other day? Are you incapable of seeing the difference
between the regularity demonstrated in those samples and the rambling
mishmash you regularly generate here?
My congratulation! Yes, haben => imati and oblak => Himmel; in first
case German to Serbian and in other Serbian to German. It's a very
perspicacious remark from your side... I must admit. The history of a
certain IE word is impossible to unveil if we do not take all the main
branches of IE speeches in a serious and the most profound
consideration.
>How do you think they demonstrate ANYTHING? When
> you compare things, they have to be COMPARABLE.
They are comparable, I showed it in one of our earlier discussions
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/198b0b79d7dd9e06?hl=en&
DV
You have no idea what you're talking about. A regular sound
correspondence is, very roughly speaking, a correspondence between sound
S1 in language L1 and sound S2 in language L2, as in the examples I gave
you earlier. Not, "boy, I found a word in German with an <a> that means
the same thing as a word in Serbian that means the same thing that has
<i>, while I found another word in Serbian that has <a> where the
corresponding word in German has <i>".
> The history of a
> certain IE word is impossible to unveil if we do not take all the main
> branches of IE speeches in a serious and the most profound
> consideration.
You aren't making any serious consideration, you're doing what you want
and imagining it to be meaningful.
>> How do you think they demonstrate ANYTHING? When
>> you compare things, they have to be COMPARABLE.
>
> They are comparable, I showed it in one of our earlier discussions
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/198b0b79d7dd9e06?hl=en&
No, they aren't. One is from German to Serbian. The other isn't. To show
a regular sound change, one has to show a pattern whereby a sound in
their common ancestor consistently became sound S1 in German (or
Proto-Germanic) and sound S2 in Serbian (or Proto-Slavic). Not sometimes
S1 in German and sometimes S2 in German and sometimes S1 in Serbian and
sometimes S2 in Serbian.
The sound changes, I am talking about, are more complicated than those
known in modern linguistic, entitled as "regular sound changes". By
the way, some of the sound laws are completely wrong, like the famous
Pederson law (RUKI rule) and a number of them are partially true
partially false. Do not forget, there are a lot of irregular sound
changes.
Namely, we have to establish a quite new phonetic rules, comparing
relations among the whole clusters of sounds and not only among the
individual sounds.
DV
In other words, as you would have it, as two languages evolve from their
common ancestors, the descendant languages keep checking in with each
other, so, for example, Serbian might have said to German, "Hey, I've
got an <i> where you've got an <a> over here! So I think I'll put an <a>
in this word over here where you've got an <i>." Sorry, it doesn't work
like this. There isn't any "more complicated" system that justifies the
kind of game you are playing
> By
> the way, some of the sound laws are completely wrong, like the famous
> Pederson law (RUKI rule) and a number of them are partially true
> partially false. Do not forget, there are a lot of irregular sound
> changes.
So? That doesn't mean you can invent them wherever you want to see
them--and especially when you have no explanation for them, and you
expect people to see them and agree with them--as usual--because you say so.
> Namely, we have to establish a quite new phonetic rules, comparing
> relations among the whole clusters of sounds and not only among the
> individual sounds.
In other words, you make it up as you go along.
[snip]
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while.
--
Ron Jarvis
Houston, TX
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
I wouldn't say you are a blind squirrel; you are a blind idiot.
An unripened acorn is bigger than your fucking (useless) brain.
DV
> > The sound changes, I am talking about, are more complicated than those
> > known in modern linguistic, entitled as "regular sound changes".
>
> In other words, as you would have it, as two languages evolve from their
> common ancestors, the descendant languages keep checking in with each
> other, so, for example, Serbian might have said to German, "Hey, I've
> got an <i> where you've got an <a> over here! So I think I'll put an <a>
> in this word over here where you've got an <i>." Sorry, it doesn't work
> like this. There isn't any "more complicated" system that justifies the
> kind of game you are playing
OK if you like the games. Let mi ask you, why German Haufen is
phonetically closer to Heaven than to Heap, while Himmel could be
rather compared to Cumulus than to Heaven?
As you can see, nothing to do with Serbian... pure Germanic words, but
I bet you cannot explain the above "enigma". Are you going to say that
the above words are not derived from the same ur-basis?
DV
> As you can see, nothing to do with Serbian... pure Germanic words,
Excluding Cumulus, of course
DV
Because things don't operate phonetically in the nice, neat patterns you
would like them to. Just as just as the Dutch word "water", the
corresponding French word, "eau", and the corresponding Irish word,
"uisge", don't sound anything like each other--yet this is a case where
we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have the same origin. If
you don't understand the facts, then you are in no position to be
creating theories, or at least not in expecting anyone to believe
anything you say.
> As you can see, nothing to do with Serbian... pure Germanic words, but
> I bet you cannot explain the above "enigma". Are you going to say that
> the above words are not derived from the same ur-basis?
If you are going to say they are, prove it. With proof. Not with idle
chains of words and with invalid leaps of logic and premises that are
inconsistent with known facts, all arising from your misconceptions
about how language changes.
What do you mean? Eau-de-vie? Water of life qalqued as uisge beatha or
aqua-vita? Of course, as translations these words are related. :-)
You are the one who is unable to understand that aqua and water are in
fact akin to eachother. On the other side, Gaelic uisce might_be the
same word as Rusian vodka. In reality, aqua is derived from the Gon-
Bel-Gon basis and voda and wetness from Bel-Gon. Serbian voda (water)
and vlaga (wetness) have the same ancestor, while English water came
from the extended form Bel-Gon-Hor (similar to Serbian vodurina /big
water/). Aqua is related to Serbian oblak (cloud; from g(n)oblak and
kupati (bathe), Greek Ωκεανός; there is a big secret why the Serbian
verbs 'uhvatiti' (to catch, seize, fetch; hvat hold) and
'okovati' (fetter) are phonetically almost the same as Latin
'aquatio' (a fetching of water) and why the English word 'fetter'
sounds almost the same as 'water' (see the etymology of the word fetch
itself).
DV
> Because things don't operate phonetically in the nice, neat patterns you
> would like them to. Just as just as the Dutch word "water", the
> corresponding French word, "eau", and the corresponding Irish word,
> "uisge", don't sound anything like each other--yet this is a case where
> we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have the same origin.
Actually, there are two unrelated IE roots for water. Latin "aqua"
(whence French "eau") derives from one of them; Germanic "water"
and Gaelic "uisge" are from the other.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
No, I mean they have a common origin.
> You are the one who is unable to understand that aqua and water are in
> fact akin to eachother.
Huh? I'm explaining to YOU that they are despite the fact that they
don't sound the same. Because one message earlier you implied that
phonetic resemblance is all-important.
Now it's clear you don't have a consistent theory at all.
On the other side, Gaelic uisce might_be the
> same word as Rusian vodka. In reality, aqua is derived from the Gon-
> Bel-Gon basis
Because you say so?
> and voda and wetness from Bel-Gon.
Because you say so?
> Serbian voda (water)
> and vlaga (wetness) have the same ancestor,
Because you say so?
> while English water came
> from the extended form Bel-Gon-Hor (similar to Serbian vodurina /big
> water/).
Because you say so?
> Aqua is related to Serbian oblak
Because you say so?
> (cloud; from g(n)oblak and
> kupati (bathe), Greek Ωκεανός; there is a big secret why the Serbian
> verbs 'uhvatiti' (to catch, seize, fetch; hvat hold) and
> 'okovati' (fetter) are phonetically almost the same as Latin
> 'aquatio' (a fetching of water)
Because you say so?
> and why the English word 'fetter'
> sounds almost the same as 'water' (see the etymology of the word fetch
> itself).
Because you say so?
I haven't seen a single ounce of *proof* anywhere in your above remarks.
Just a long string of unsupported claims.
> > What do you mean? Eau-de-vie? Water of life qalqued as uisge beatha or
> > aqua-vita? Of course, as translations these words are related. :-)
>
> No, I mean they have a common origin.
It means that you have an opinion that *aqua- and *ved- are the roots
who have the same ancestor and that ancestor is *aquved-?
If so, you might be partially right. Serbian words like ukapati (to
seep in, ooze) and ukuvati (to boil down). The first word (ukapati) is
related to oblak {g(n)oblak} and kapljanje {from g(n)abljanje oozing}.
The second one (ukuvati) comes from the Serbian verb kobeljati (to
roll about, hobble); hence kuveljati and kuvati (whirl, simmer). It is
unnecessary to add that Kobeljanje (hobbling) is related to Okupljanje
(assembling) and both words are akin to Gomilanje (heaping up) the
ancient man had noticed when he looked the heavy Cumulus heaping up in
the sky.
DV
>Oh, shoot. The irony is that I made Dusan's mistake--I though it was a
>given that "aqua" ( whence French "eau") was related to "uisge"!
Wodka and whiskey. Both water.
--
Ruud Harmsen
Don’t take Harlan's words too seriously in this case. He is just
trying to be witty.
Here is what MacBain is saying about uisce:
{...Irish uisge, Old Irish uisce, usce: *ud-s-kio, root ud, ved; Greek
@Gu@`/dwr, @Gu@`dos; English water, etc.; Sanskrit udán; further Latin
unda, wave. Stokes suggests the possibility of uisge being for
*uskio-, and allied to English wash....}
It is the reason why I said that uisce _might be_ related to Russin
vodka (diminutive of voda; Serb. vodica). Of course, it is not my
"invention"; some serious scientists have also been mentioning it.
There are also Serbian vords like voša (hypocoristically), Slavic
surname Vodenski, Vodeski, village Vodensko in Macedonia (Voden in
Greek), river Vodenska in Bulgaria.
I think that a certain musical band coined the word VODSKI, by
combining VOTKA and WHISKEY.
There are a lot of Slavic place names Vodice; above mentioned Slavic
town in Greece - Voden or Vodica - was renamed Έδεσσα in Greek.
A German historian Ulrich Wilcken concluded that the name Edessa was
of Illyrian origin despite the clear fact that Edessa was a Greek
garbled "translation" of the Slavic P.N. Vodica (Voda water). Of
course, you will find an incorrect explanation about the origin of the
name of that ancient town in the official history. Namely, the name
EDESSA means nothing in Greek, while Serbo-Slavic VODENA or VODICA
(VODENSKO) is the logical name for the town, which is full of water
resources and waterfalls, located in the mere centre of the city
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:07Edessa01.jpg .
The problem is, if the modern science accepted the above undeniable
facts, the whole history of the Balkan must have been reexamined and
rewritten. Hence, if the name Edessa was a mutilated Slavic name
Vodica (and it was like that undoubtedly), it would inevitably entail
that Slavs were natives of the Balkan long before the Christian era.
DV
What my mistake? I emphesized that uisce (whiskey) _might be_ related
to water. Do you know the difference among "might be", "it is" and
"must be"? Once again, all I said was: "It might be - but not
undoubtedly!"
DV
> Wodka and whiskey. Both water.
Yes, of course. I found the Scottish word whisker (a breezy
wind)http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/index.html. This word appears to be
related to whisk (beat, whip, a quick, sharp stroke, a swift
(sweeping) movement; also wisk, wysk and quhisk). It could be related
to Serbian vihor (a strong wind) while the Serbian word udar (beat,
sharp stroke; Serb. udar vetra /the blow of the wind/) is in relation
to both - to vetar (vind) and to voda (water; Serbian vodurina /a big
water/ => udaranje /beating, strike, pounding/).
It seems that MacBain was right with his *ud-s-kio- root where the
sound /s/ might have had a "prosthetic" role.
DV
No, sorry, it turns out I was mistaken about that.
> If so, you might be partially right. Serbian words like ukapati (to
> seep in, ooze) and ukuvati (to boil down). The first word (ukapati) is
> related to oblak {g(n)oblak} and kapljanje {from g(n)abljanje oozing}.
Because you say so?
> The second one (ukuvati) comes from the Serbian verb kobeljati (to
> roll about, hobble);
Because you say so?
> hence kuveljati and kuvati (whirl, simmer). It is
> unnecessary to add that Kobeljanje (hobbling) is related to Okupljanje
Because you say so?
I made the mistake *you* make over and over of assuming that two words
from languages that seem (to me) to be phonetically similar and that
have the same or similar meanings, are related. The difference between
you and me is that when you see such a pair of words, you declare their
supposed connection to be a fact that you have discovered and that isn't
subject to disagreement, whereas when someone points out to me that I'm
mistaken, I'll double-check my assumption and readily admit my mistake.
No, I'm showing that your assumptions about language change are wrong.
The only "disagreement" I can find here is your constant parroting;
"Because you say so".
DV
>whereas when someone points out to me that I'm
> mistaken, I'll double-check my assumption and readily admit my mistake.-
> > Don’t take Harlan's words too seriously in this case. He is just
> > trying to be witty.
>
> No, I'm showing that your assumptions about language change are wrong.-
Showing? How? By repeating one and the same sentence, mindlessly, over
and over again?
DV
I must admit, your argumentation is enormously powerful and overall
convincing!
"Because you say so!"
Nevertheless, give me a break, please! I've been listening that
sentence (and similar arguments) for more than thirty years... From my
wife... of course! :-)
DV
It isn't argumentation. It's a repeated reminder that you make claim
after claim without arguing for any of them expecting them to be
accepted just because you say so. You keep wondering why no one believes
you. It's because you expect them to accept all your claims just because
you say so.
> Nevertheless, give me a break, please! I've been listening that
> sentence (and similar arguments) for more than thirty years... From my
> wife... of course! :-)
Then come up with something more substantive than your say-so.
I keep asking it because you keep making claims based, apparently, on
nothing more than your say-so. So I keep asking you this to find out if
you have any basis OTHER than your say-so. And you never do. Ever.
No, by giving you example about the various words for "water". Although
now, because your memory is a sieve, you're going to claim that I never
gave you any such example, just as you've already claimed that no one
has ever offered any counterarguments to your nonsense.
Well, if that had been true, you would have been able to mention at
least one small example from your "voluminous" and "sensible" archive
of (counter)arguments.
DV
> It isn't argumentation. It's a repeated reminder that you make claim
> after claim without arguing for any of them expecting them to be
> accepted just because you say so. You keep wondering why no one believes
> you. It's because you expect them to accept all your claims just because
> you say so.
I expect nothing, especially not here in this place. I know exactly
what I am talking about and I understand that anyone who is reading my
posts must be slightly confused, because my findings are in a moderate
collision or contradiction with those "axioms" that have been
established by now in the modern science of linguistics.
In fact, what I am talking about is not something that contradicts
much of what the modern approach of historical linguistics is based
on. All I diid is to introduce a three-sillabic human speech formula
(Xur-Bel-Gon), as a common "ancestor" or the "word generator" for the
IE languages.
DV
Oh. So you're wasting all this time for entertainment?
> I know exactly
> what I am talking about
No, you don't, and it's evident from what you say.
> and I understand that anyone who is reading my
> posts must be slightly confused, because my findings are in a moderate
> collision or contradiction with those "axioms" that have been
> established by now in the modern science of linguistics.
They aren't axioms. They are conclusions arrived at through study and
reasoning, based on the observed facts. Unlike yours.
> In fact, what I am talking about is not something that contradicts
> much of what the modern approach of historical linguistics is based
> on.
And evidently you must think it's all true just because you say so,
because you provide no evidence.
Google is at your disposal. It isn't my business to make up for your
memory loss.
It is not difficult to see the correspondences among the same branch
of languages. What are we going to do with Slavic or Romance words?
German "ei" ~ Dutch "ee" ~ English "o"eins/een/one =
Latin unus; Russian один; Greek ένας; Serb. jedan; Slovene eden; Cz.
jedno;
It is more than obvious that all these words were derived from the
same source. Tell me, what source was it? For instance, would you say
that Serbian jedan and German jeden -r (any; jedenfalls anyway) could
be related to Serbian jedan, jedno (the same) and jednako (equal).
What do you expect me to do if the phonetic changes were so
unpredictable as they were in this case; German jeden corresponds to
OE 'ænig' or English 'any' (anyone). Among the common people in Serbia
even today we can here the words "jenak" (the same, of the same
quality; jednak) and 'jenom' (to sombody); hence the Serbian pronouns
'onaj' (that one), 'neko/neki' (someone, anyone). After this small
comparison, the conclusion is inevitable: all the pronouns (except the
second person singular and plural) in Serbian are related to the
number one (jedan). Similar is in all the other IE languages.
zwei/twee/two = Serb. dva, Lat. duo; similar in other IE languages.
Have you ever asked yourself why the German "divide" sounds Teilung
and not Zeilung (Zeile row, line)? Divide is related to Serbian
odvojiti (separate; odvajati) while German Teilung is akin to Serbia
'deljenje' (division, separation; Ger. Teil part = Serb. deo; from
del, deliti divide). Now we can see (I hope you are not so blind) that
English divide (Lat. divido -videre), German teilen and Serbian
deljenje/odvajanje are the words derived from the same ur-basis. In
addition, there is the English word double (Lat. duplus), which is
also in an accordance with the all above mentioned "divisible" words.
The number 'two' followed the "breaking off" (Serbian odvaliti break
off => odvojiti separate) and the opposite, "thickening" (Serb.
debljanje /thickening/ => dobijanje /acquiring/ => dvojenje /
doubling/) logic.
For instance, the English word "deal" has two meanings: one is
"distribute", i.e. "divide", and the other is "plank or board of
pine". Are you able to GRASP that these "two" words/meanings (deal as
"an agreement between parties" and "plank/board") are akin to each-
other? If you agreed that the both meanings of "deal" are related,
would you be able to explan why and how it happened? English is your
mother language, isn't it?
DV
It is really entertaning to know how and from where the IE vocabilary
evolved and, at the same time, watch the people (historical linguists;
PIE'st and "reconstructers" of mist) who are trying to make more and
more "sagacious" contributions to the linguistic science, although
they understand so little about what they are doing at all.
DV
Flinching?
DV
Then you are incapable of distinguishing the most obvious of regular
patterns from the haphazard mishmash of words in different languages
that you generate, and are therefore incapable of producing any rational
conclusions.
Your "understanding" consists of random garbage for which you have no
support, while theirs consists of rigorous consideration of observable
patterns that provide evidence of the way languages have changed.
English 'deal' is not a mishmash, I suppose? Why don't you try to
answer that "dealing" question, which is a part of your native
vocabulary? What an "agreement" has to do with the "division" of
planks?
DV
I am still trying to make a DEAL with you.
Why and how the English word 'deal' is related to Slavic dleto
(chisel)? Maybe the words as Eng. delve (OE delfan) and Serbo-Slavic
dub(l)iti, dubljenje?
I am mentioning the Slavic words just in case you are not DEEPLY
familiar with your native tongue.
DV
> Maybe the words as Eng. delve (OE delfan) and Serbo-Slavic
> dub(l)iti, dubljenje?
I left the above sentence unfinished. It should read:
Maybe the words as Eng. delve (OE delfan) and Serbo-Slavic dub(l)iti,
dubljenje (deepening) could be of some help for you to refresh your
memory and improve your mother-tongue speech perception and
"counterbalancing"?
DV
Now you want to *bargain* your way into having your ramblings accepted
as fact?