Equisine, not vaccine

[Daud Deden]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/why-word-vaccine-probably-all-wrong

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

Post by Daud Deden
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/why-word-vaccine-probably-all-wrong

Lots of words are in this way "wrong", but they are too entrenched. Anyway, nobody thinks of Latin vacca when they hear the word vaccine. To suggest that words are somehow "wrong" because they are "etymologically incorrect" is a fallacy.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

Post by Daud Deden
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/why-word-vaccine-probably-all-wrong

Lots of words are in this way "wrong", but they are too entrenched. Anyway, nobody thinks of Latin vacca when they hear the word vaccine. To suggest that words are somehow "wrong" because they are "etymologically incorrect" is a fallacy.

Yes, but I hadn't heard of this one before.

vacca/bos ~ mbuaxe/mboxe ~ mother ox

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

Post by Daud Deden
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/why-word-vaccine-probably-all-wrong

Lots of words are in this way "wrong", but they are too entrenched. Anyway, nobody thinks of Latin vacca when they hear the word vaccine. To suggest that words are somehow "wrong" because they are "etymologically incorrect" is a fallacy.

Yes, but I hadn't heard of this one before.

Noting that there is so much about language and linguistics before, shouldn't you do some serious study before pronouncing weightily on etymology?

[Daud Deden]

Mścisław, I meant I hadn't heard that vaccines were made with horses, that was new to me. I knew vacca, bos, equus.

[Daud Deden]

Mścisław, I've done lots of in-cubicle study and lots of field work preparing me for Paleo-etymology interpretation.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

Post by Daud Deden
vacca/bos ~ mbuaxe/mboxe ~ mother ox

This "etymology" is obviously your own fancy, and need not be taken seriously.

[Daud Deden]

Mścisław, thanks for sharing your opinion. I disagree. DD

[Daud Deden]

Mścisław, thanks for mentioning: "Copula"

Copula(te) ~ xyua.mbua.tla.tla ~ combine (make) lyqt/life/fire ~ co-emb(e)r(.yonic)/***@Aztec/(ins)emen(.yolk)
Xyua: sieve/s(h)ift/shave/grate/greet/***@Afr~jambu-***@Malay:meet-mate~genito-gamete~kenduri-jamuan:party
-Mbua/mbo-: mate.r, ibu, emak
-***@Aztec: flame~fam.iliar
-Tlachyah/tlaxya: fl(ame)liq(uid), ***@Malay:festival

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Daud Deden
Mścisław, thanks for mentioning: "Copula"

"Afr" is not a language; neither is "African". This kind of thing just
makes you look ignorant. Jambo is Swahili, as you could easily have
found out for yourself.

Post by Daud Deden
-Mbua/mbo-: mate.r, ibu, emak

No, Malay raya means 'great'. You've probably been misled by Hari Raya
(great day), the Malay name for the Muslim Eid al-Fitr festival.

[Daud Deden]

Ross, thanks for sharing your opinion. (Afr.) was used because I am under the impression that it is used as a general greeting by many people (along with "karibu") who are not otherwise normally ki-swahili speakers.

Una engere ki-swahili, Ross?

***@Malay: to celebrate festively, to honor.. it is not a synonym for 'great' though it may be used in association with it.

Xya.mbua.tlaxya ~
Jamuan/jumpa/***@M + ***@M ~ ja.mba.laya\***@Provençal ~ ***@NWAmerInd Haida? ~ ***@Yap/Truk ~ ***@Eng ~ ***@Hung

To comprehend Paleo-etymology, one must listen. DD

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks for sharing your opinion. (Afr.) was used because I am under the impression that it is used as a general greeting by many people (along with "karibu") who are not otherwise normally ki-swahili speakers.

Given Swahili's regional importance, that would not be surprising.
It does not alter the fact that the word comes from Swahili, any more
than various people using "ciao" makes it (Eur.) rather than Italian.

Post by Daud Deden
Una engere ki-swahili, Ross?

No, the sense of "honor, celebrate" (merayakan) is clearly derived
from the sense "great".

Post by Daud Deden
Xya.mbua.tlaxya ~

This one's quite amusing. Maybe the best approach is just to lie back
and enjoy them as play-performance.

But...
Malay
jamuan 'dinner party' (from jamu 'receive, entertain')
jumpa 'to meet'
mix 'em together and you get jambu (not actually a Malay word, am I right?).
Gumbo ain't Provençal, it's African-American from a Bantu word
for 'okra'. It's jambalaya that's supposed to be from Provençal.
Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for
'give' (pachitl).
I don't know what you mean by "Yap/Truk", unless you found this word
floating in the sea somewhere between these two places, where they
speak very different languages. I don't find "gupot" in either dictionary,
probably because your spelling is wrong. What's it supposed to mean?
And "goulash", I find, is from Hungarian for "herdsman" (gulyás hús
'herdsman's meat'). Put that in your paleo-meat-grinder.

Post by Daud Deden
To comprehend Paleo-etymology, one must listen. DD

Believe me, I do, but I still don't comprehend it.

[Daud Deden]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks for sharing your opinion. (Afr.) was used because I am under the impression that it is used as a general greeting by many people (along with "karibu") who are not otherwise normally ki-swahili speakers.

Given Swahili's regional importance, that would not be surprising.
It does not alter the fact that the word comes from Swahili, any more
than various people using "ciao" makes it (Eur.) rather than Italian.

Post by Daud Deden
Una engere ki-swahili, Ross?

No, the sense of "honor, celebrate" (merayakan) is clearly derived
from the sense "great".

Post by Daud Deden
Xya.mbua.tlaxya ~

This one's quite amusing. Maybe the best approach is just to lie back
and enjoy them as play-performance.
But...
Malay
jamuan 'dinner party' (from jamu 'receive, entertain')
jumpa 'to meet'
mix 'em together and you get jambu (not actually a Malay word, am I right?).
Gumbo ain't Provençal, it's African-American from a Bantu word
for 'okra'. It's jambalaya that's supposed to be from Provençal.
Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for
'give' (pachitl).
I don't know what you mean by "Yap/Truk", unless you found this word
floating in the sea somewhere between these two places, where they
speak very different languages. I don't find "gupot" in either dictionary,
probably because your spelling is wrong. What's it supposed to mean?
And "goulash", I find, is from Hungarian for "herdsman" (gulyás hús
'herdsman's meat'). Put that in your paleo-meat-grinder.

Post by Daud Deden
To comprehend Paleo-etymology, one must listen. DD

Believe me, I do, but I still don't comprehend it.

Ross, I will respond but the computer net is F***** up today, can't link or search, keeps locking up.

gumbo - Choctaw? "The dish likely derived its name from either a word from a Bantu language for okra (ki ngombo) or the Choctaw word for filé (kombo)." My buddy James, great grandfather was chief of Choctaw, votes for Choctaw derivation. I agree.
gupot - http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/news/gupot-sumongsong-a-unique-celebration-of-taotao-haya-culture
gupot - Chamorro word Marianas: Party; celebration; fiesta; festivity; holiday; feast.
Swahili - from Ki-Ngozi Bantu
Herdsman herds meat, festivals have meat.
Potlatch - It is a give-away but *always* as part of a feast, not just "giving" in general.
Potluck ~ picnic

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks for sharing your opinion. (Afr.) was used because I am under the impression that it is used as a general greeting by many people (along with "karibu") who are not otherwise normally ki-swahili speakers.

Given Swahili's regional importance, that would not be surprising.
It does not alter the fact that the word comes from Swahili, any more
than various people using "ciao" makes it (Eur.) rather than Italian.

Post by Daud Deden
Una engere ki-swahili, Ross?

No, the sense of "honor, celebrate" (merayakan) is clearly derived
from the sense "great".

Post by Daud Deden
Xya.mbua.tlaxya ~

This one's quite amusing. Maybe the best approach is just to lie back
and enjoy them as play-performance.
But...
Malay
jamuan 'dinner party' (from jamu 'receive, entertain')
jumpa 'to meet'
mix 'em together and you get jambu (not actually a Malay word, am I right?).
Gumbo ain't Provençal, it's African-American from a Bantu word
for 'okra'. It's jambalaya that's supposed to be from Provençal.
Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for
'give' (pachitl).
I don't know what you mean by "Yap/Truk", unless you found this word
floating in the sea somewhere between these two places, where they
speak very different languages. I don't find "gupot" in either dictionary,
probably because your spelling is wrong. What's it supposed to mean?
And "goulash", I find, is from Hungarian for "herdsman" (gulyás hús
'herdsman's meat'). Put that in your paleo-meat-grinder.

Post by Daud Deden
To comprehend Paleo-etymology, one must listen. DD

Believe me, I do, but I still don't comprehend it.

Ross, I will respond but the computer net is F***** up today, can't link or search, keeps locking up.
gumbo - Choctaw? "The dish likely derived its name from either a word from a Bantu language for okra (ki ngombo) or the Choctaw word for filé (kombo)." My buddy James, great grandfather was chief of Choctaw, votes for Choctaw derivation. I agree.
gupot - http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/news/gupot-sumongsong-a-unique-celebration-of-taotao-haya-culture
gupot - Chamorro word Marianas: Party; celebration; fiesta; festivity; holiday; feast.

Ah. So not wrong spelling, wrong language. Not Yap, not Truk, not Yap/Truk.

Post by Daud Deden
Swahili - from Ki-Ngozi Bantu
Herdsman herds meat, festivals have meat.

I never doubted your ability to string them together.

Post by Daud Deden
Potlatch - It is a give-away but *always* as part of a feast, not just "giving" in general.

That is the meaning of the English word. I was telling you about its
origin, in words which mean "give in general".

Post by Daud Deden
Potluck ~ picnic

[Daud Deden]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks for sharing your opinion. (Afr.) was used because I am under the impression that it is used as a general greeting by many people (along with "karibu") who are not otherwise normally ki-swahili speakers.

Given Swahili's regional importance, that would not be surprising.
It does not alter the fact that the word comes from Swahili, any more
than various people using "ciao" makes it (Eur.) rather than Italian.

Post by Daud Deden
Una engere ki-swahili, Ross?

No, the sense of "honor, celebrate" (merayakan) is clearly derived
from the sense "great".

Post by Daud Deden
Xya.mbua.tlaxya ~

This one's quite amusing. Maybe the best approach is just to lie back
and enjoy them as play-performance.
But...
Malay
jamuan 'dinner party' (from jamu 'receive, entertain')
jumpa 'to meet'
mix 'em together and you get jambu (not actually a Malay word, am I right?).
Gumbo ain't Provençal, it's African-American from a Bantu word
for 'okra'. It's jambalaya that's supposed to be from Provençal.
Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for
'give' (pachitl).
I don't know what you mean by "Yap/Truk", unless you found this word
floating in the sea somewhere between these two places, where they
speak very different languages. I don't find "gupot" in either dictionary,
probably because your spelling is wrong. What's it supposed to mean?
And "goulash", I find, is from Hungarian for "herdsman" (gulyás hús
'herdsman's meat'). Put that in your paleo-meat-grinder.

Post by Daud Deden
To comprehend Paleo-etymology, one must listen. DD

Believe me, I do, but I still don't comprehend it.

Ross, I will respond but the computer net is F***** up today, can't link or search, keeps locking up.
gumbo - Choctaw? "The dish likely derived its name from either a word from a Bantu language for okra (ki ngombo) or the Choctaw word for filé (kombo)." My buddy James, great grandfather was chief of Choctaw, votes for Choctaw derivation. I agree.
gupot - http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/news/gupot-sumongsong-a-unique-celebration-of-taotao-haya-culture
gupot - Chamorro word Marianas: Party; celebration; fiesta; festivity; holiday; feast.

Ah. So not wrong spelling, wrong language. Not Yap, not Truk, not Yap/Truk.

Ross, they are all very similar:

qabiich, ***@Yap: eat, consume
***@Truk: feast
***@Chamorro, Mariana: feast

gu.pot ~ qa.biich ~ ka.metip ~ all rooted via xya.mbuat ~ feast ~ ce.remony-ce.lebrate

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Swahili - from Ki-Ngozi Bantu
Herdsman herds meat, festivals have meat.

I never doubted your ability to string them together.

Aside from a few modern marketing schemes like The Great Pumpkin Festival, most traditional feasts and festivals like Hari Raya feature large amounts of fresh meat, a major draw to community members & guests, often the meat is "donated" in some way with acknowledgement & social status. Neolithic herdsmen were certainly involved in this, just as Paleolithic large-game hunters were at an earlier period.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Potlatch - It is a give-away but *always* as part of a feast, not just "giving" in general.

That is the meaning of the English word. I was telling you about its
origin, in words which mean "give in general".

" Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
'give' (pachitl). "

Do you have verification of that?

Wikipedia has a different derivation:

The word comes from the Chinook Jargon, meaning "to give away" or "a gift"; originally from the Nuu-chah-nulth word paɬaˑč, to make a ceremonial gift in a potlatch.[1]

That looks like "p(a/o)tlatch", (obviously from mbuatluaxyua or so.)

No 'general giving' explicit there.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Po.tluck ~ pi.cnic

[Daud Deden]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks for sharing your opinion. (Afr.) was used because I am under the impression that it is used as a general greeting by many people (along with "karibu") who are not otherwise normally ki-swahili speakers.

Given Swahili's regional importance, that would not be surprising.
It does not alter the fact that the word comes from Swahili, any more
than various people using "ciao" makes it (Eur.) rather than Italian.

Post by Daud Deden
Una engere ki-swahili, Ross?

No, the sense of "honor, celebrate" (merayakan) is clearly derived
from the sense "great".

Do you have verification of that? Again, raya is not a synonym of great. Merayakan is a derivative, implying action, celebrating.

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Xya.mbua.tlaxya ~

This one's quite amusing. Maybe the best approach is just to lie back
and enjoy them as play-performance.
But...
Malay
jamuan 'dinner party' (from jamu 'receive, entertain')
jumpa 'to meet'
mix 'em together and you get jambu (not actually a Malay word, am I right?).
Gumbo ain't Provençal, it's African-American from a Bantu word
for 'okra'. It's jambalaya that's supposed to be from Provençal.
Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for
'give' (pachitl).
I don't know what you mean by "Yap/Truk", unless you found this word
floating in the sea somewhere between these two places, where they
speak very different languages. I don't find "gupot" in either dictionary,
probably because your spelling is wrong. What's it supposed to mean?
And "goulash", I find, is from Hungarian for "herdsman" (gulyás hús
'herdsman's meat'). Put that in your paleo-meat-grinder.

Post by Daud Deden
To comprehend Paleo-etymology, one must listen. DD

Believe me, I do, but I still don't comprehend it.

Ross, I will respond but the computer net is F***** up today, can't link or search, keeps locking up.
gumbo - Choctaw? "The dish likely derived its name from either a word from a Bantu language for okra (ki ngombo) or the Choctaw word for filé (kombo)." My buddy James, great grandfather was chief of Choctaw, votes for Choctaw derivation. I agree.
gupot - http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/news/gupot-sumongsong-a-unique-celebration-of-taotao-haya-culture
gupot - Chamorro word Marianas: Party; celebration; fiesta; festivity; holiday; feast.

Ah. So not wrong spelling, wrong language. Not Yap, not Truk, not Yap/Truk.

gu.pot ~ qa.biich ~ ka.metip ~ all rooted via xya.mbuat ~ feast ~ ce.remony-ce.lebrate

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Swahili - from Ki-Ngozi Bantu
Herdsman herds meat, festivals have meat.

I never doubted your ability to string them together.

Aside from a few modern marketing schemes like The Great Pumpkin Festival, most traditional feasts and festivals like Hari Raya feature large amounts of fresh meat, a major draw to community members & guests, often the meat is "donated" in some way with acknowledgement & social status. Neolithic herdsmen were certainly involved in this, just as Paleolithic large-game hunters were at an earlier period.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Potlatch - It is a give-away but *always* as part of a feast, not just "giving" in general.

That is the meaning of the English word. I was telling you about its
origin, in words which mean "give in general".

" Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
'give' (pachitl). "

Do you have verification of that?
The word comes from the Chinook Jargon, meaning "to give away" or "a gift"; originally from the Nuu-chah-nulth word paɬaˑč, to make a ceremonial gift in a potlatch.[1]
That looks like "p(a/o)tlatch", (mbuatluaxyua or so.)
No 'general giving' explicit there.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Po.tluck ~ pi.cnic

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks for sharing your opinion. (Afr.) was used because I am under the impression that it is used as a general greeting by many people (along with "karibu") who are not otherwise normally ki-swahili speakers.

Given Swahili's regional importance, that would not be surprising.
It does not alter the fact that the word comes from Swahili, any more
than various people using "ciao" makes it (Eur.) rather than Italian.

Post by Daud Deden
Una engere ki-swahili, Ross?

No, the sense of "honor, celebrate" (merayakan) is clearly derived
from the sense "great".

Post by Daud Deden
Xya.mbua.tlaxya ~

This one's quite amusing. Maybe the best approach is just to lie back
and enjoy them as play-performance.
But...
Malay
jamuan 'dinner party' (from jamu 'receive, entertain')
jumpa 'to meet'
mix 'em together and you get jambu (not actually a Malay word, am I right?).
Gumbo ain't Provençal, it's African-American from a Bantu word
for 'okra'. It's jambalaya that's supposed to be from Provençal.
Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for
'give' (pachitl).
I don't know what you mean by "Yap/Truk", unless you found this word
floating in the sea somewhere between these two places, where they
speak very different languages. I don't find "gupot" in either dictionary,
probably because your spelling is wrong. What's it supposed to mean?
And "goulash", I find, is from Hungarian for "herdsman" (gulyás hús
'herdsman's meat'). Put that in your paleo-meat-grinder.

Post by Daud Deden
To comprehend Paleo-etymology, one must listen. DD

Believe me, I do, but I still don't comprehend it.

Ross, I will respond but the computer net is F***** up today, can't link or search, keeps locking up.
gumbo - Choctaw? "The dish likely derived its name from either a word from a Bantu language for okra (ki ngombo) or the Choctaw word for filé (kombo)." My buddy James, great grandfather was chief of Choctaw, votes for Choctaw derivation. I agree.
gupot - http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/news/gupot-sumongsong-a-unique-celebration-of-taotao-haya-culture
gupot - Chamorro word Marianas: Party; celebration; fiesta; festivity; holiday; feast.

Ah. So not wrong spelling, wrong language. Not Yap, not Truk, not Yap/Truk.

No, they are not. And daisy-chaining three words does not prove the contrary.

Post by Daud Deden
gu.pot ~ qa.biich ~ ka.metip ~ all rooted via xya.mbuat ~ feast ~ ce.remony-ce.lebrate

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Swahili - from Ki-Ngozi Bantu
Herdsman herds meat, festivals have meat.

I never doubted your ability to string them together.

Aside from a few modern marketing schemes like The Great Pumpkin Festival, most traditional feasts and festivals like Hari Raya feature large amounts of fresh meat, a major draw to community members & guests, often the meat is "donated" in some way with acknowledgement & social status. Neolithic herdsmen were certainly involved in this, just as Paleolithic large-game hunters were at an earlier period.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Potlatch - It is a give-away but *always* as part of a feast, not just "giving" in general.

That is the meaning of the English word. I was telling you about its
origin, in words which mean "give in general".

" Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
'give' (pachitl). "

Do you have verification of that?
The word comes from the Chinook Jargon, meaning "to give away" or "a gift"; originally from the Nuu-chah-nulth word paɬaˑč, to make a ceremonial gift in a potlatch.[1]

Right about the first part, not the second. Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) paɬaˑč
is a noun, a (re-)borrowing from Chinook Jargon.

There is a N. verb p'a 'potlatch, make a ceremonial gift during the
potlatch ceremony' (from Stonham's dictionary, 2005). This was taken
by the early fur traders, with an aspectual suffix, as 'pachitl', and generalized to mean 'give' in their jargon version of N. It was probably
part of the N. vocabulary carried to the Columbia River by the traders
which contributed about 20 basic words to the Chinook Jargon. I say
'probably' (here and above) because nobody has suggested a better etymology;
but exactly where the '-tlatch' part came from is still unclear.

[Daud Deden]

Ross, they are all very similar:

No, they are not. And daisy-chaining three words does not prove the contrary.

Ross, you are still reading scripture and lacing dead flora. I guess it must entertain you more than listening and ascertaining patterns of prehistoric language. To each his own.

Post by Daud Deden
gu.pot ~ qa.biich ~ ka.metip ~ all rooted via xya.mbuat ~ feast ~ ce.remony-ce.lebrate

Xy(u)ambuatlaxy(u)

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Swahili - from Ki-Ngozi Bantu
Herdsman herds meat, festivals have meat.

I never doubted your ability to string them together.

Aside from a few modern marketing schemes like The Great Pumpkin Festival, most traditional feasts and festivals like Hari Raya feature large amounts of fresh meat, a major draw to community members & guests, often the meat is "donated" in some way with acknowledgement & social status. Neolithic herdsmen were certainly involved in this, just as Paleolithic large-game hunters were at an earlier period.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Potlatch - It is a give-away but *always* as part of a feast, not just "giving" in general.

That is the meaning of the English word. I was telling you about its
origin, in words which mean "give in general".

" Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
'give' (pachitl). "

Do you have verification of that?
The word comes from the Chinook Jargon, meaning "to give away" or "a gift"; originally from the Nuu-chah-nulth word paɬaˑč, to make a ceremonial gift in a potlatch.[1]

Right about the first part, not the second. Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) paɬaˑč
is a noun, a (re-)borrowing from Chinook Jargon.

Give/gave a gift ~
He gifted her a watch
Carlos said often verbs were nouns first.

There is a N. verb p'a 'potlatch, make a ceremonial gift during the
potlatch ceremony' (from Stonham's dictionary, 2005). This was taken
by the early fur traders, with an aspectual suffix, as 'pachitl', and generalized to mean 'give' in their jargon version of N. It was probably
part of the N. vocabulary carried to the Columbia River by the traders
which contributed about 20 basic words to the Chinook Jargon. I say
'probably' (here and above) because nobody has suggested a better etymology;
but exactly where the '-tlatch' part came from is still unclear.

-tlatch ~ -tlaxy(u)a
The (u) makes it a show, dog show, talent show = shower/sievings, compete/xyuambuat/combat

But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
No, they are not. And daisy-chaining three words does not prove the contrary.
Ross, you are still reading scripture and lacing dead flora. I guess it must entertain you more than listening and ascertaining patterns of prehistoric language. To each his own.

Well, that's what I've said ever since you arrived here. Your "ascertaining"
pastime obviously entertains you more than learning anything about
the actual relations among present-day words and languages. So enjoy yourself.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
gu.pot ~ qa.biich ~ ka.metip ~ all rooted via xya.mbuat ~ feast ~ ce.remony-ce.lebrate

Xy(u)ambuatlaxy(u)

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Swahili - from Ki-Ngozi Bantu
Herdsman herds meat, festivals have meat.

I never doubted your ability to string them together.

Aside from a few modern marketing schemes like The Great Pumpkin Festival, most traditional feasts and festivals like Hari Raya feature large amounts of fresh meat, a major draw to community members & guests, often the meat is "donated" in some way with acknowledgement & social status. Neolithic herdsmen were certainly involved in this, just as Paleolithic large-game hunters were at an earlier period.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Potlatch - It is a give-away but *always* as part of a feast, not just "giving" in general.

That is the meaning of the English word. I was telling you about its
origin, in words which mean "give in general".

" Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
'give' (pachitl). "

Do you have verification of that?
The word comes from the Chinook Jargon, meaning "to give away" or "a gift"; originally from the Nuu-chah-nulth word paɬaˑč, to make a ceremonial gift in a potlatch.[1]

Right about the first part, not the second. Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) paɬaˑč
is a noun, a (re-)borrowing from Chinook Jargon.
Give/gave a gift ~
He gifted her a watch
Carlos said often verbs were nouns first.

A well known fact; I'm surprised you needed Carlos to tell you. It
does not follow that every noun is (or was once) a verb or vice versa.
So your Wiki source gave an incorrect gloss for the Nuu-chah-nulth word,
and missed the fact that the CJ word was its source.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
There is a N. verb p'a 'potlatch, make a ceremonial gift during the
potlatch ceremony' (from Stonham's dictionary, 2005). This was taken
by the early fur traders, with an aspectual suffix, as 'pachitl', and generalized to mean 'give' in their jargon version of N. It was probably
part of the N. vocabulary carried to the Columbia River by the traders
which contributed about 20 basic words to the Chinook Jargon. I say
'probably' (here and above) because nobody has suggested a better etymology;
but exactly where the '-tlatch' part came from is still unclear.
-tlatch ~ -tlaxy(u)a
The (u) makes it a show, dog show, talent show = shower/sievings, compete/xyuambuat/combat

Sorry, no clearer.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?

[Daud Deden]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
No, they are not. And daisy-chaining three words does not prove the contrary.
Ross, you are still reading scripture and lacing dead flora. I guess it must entertain you more than listening and ascertaining patterns of prehistoric language. To each his own.

Well, that's what I've said ever since you arrived here. Your "ascertaining"
pastime obviously entertains you more than learning anything about
the actual relations among present-day words and languages. So enjoy yourself.

The past informs the present, usually the present distorts the past, so I listen to both the linguistic etymological taproot (mothers' milk) and to the branches (~Franz's level) and twigs & leaves(~Your's, Peter's, Yusuf's, etc. level). It sounds better that way, a temporal acoustic & semantic symphony. Unfortunately, some don't hear, too busy reading.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
gu.pot ~ qa.biich ~ ka.metip ~ all rooted via xya.mbuat ~ feast ~ ce.remony-ce.lebrate

Xy(u)ambuatlaxy(u)

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Swahili - from Ki-Ngozi Bantu
Herdsman herds meat, festivals have meat.

I never doubted your ability to string them together.

Aside from a few modern marketing schemes like The Great Pumpkin Festival, most traditional feasts and festivals like Hari Raya feature large amounts of fresh meat, a major draw to community members & guests, often the meat is "donated" in some way with acknowledgement & social status. Neolithic herdsmen were certainly involved in this, just as Paleolithic large-game hunters were at an earlier period.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Potlatch - It is a give-away but *always* as part of a feast, not just "giving" in general.

That is the meaning of the English word. I was telling you about its
origin, in words which mean "give in general".

" Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
'give' (pachitl). "

Do you have verification of that?
The word comes from the Chinook Jargon, meaning "to give away" or "a gift"; originally from the Nuu-chah-nulth word paɬaˑč, to make a ceremonial gift in a potlatch.[1]

Right about the first part, not the second. Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) paɬaˑč
is a noun, a (re-)borrowing from Chinook Jargon.
Give/gave a gift ~
He gifted her a watch
Carlos said often verbs were nouns first.

A well known fact; I'm surprised you needed Carlos to tell you.

There were no nouns or verbs in early human language, milk(y) preceding such concepts. Carlos has helped me to understand many Neo-etymological paradigms which have little relevance to ancient human language evolution, as has Dan Everett. You have often inadvertently confirmed them.

does not follow that every noun is (or was once) a verb or vice versa.
So your Wiki source gave an incorrect gloss for the Nuu-chah-nulth word,
and missed the fact that the CJ word was its source.

You claim, based on probability, not certainty.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
There is a N. verb p'a 'potlatch, make a ceremonial gift during the
potlatch ceremony' (from Stonham's dictionary, 2005). This was taken
by the early fur traders, with an aspectual suffix, as 'pachitl', and generalized to mean 'give' in their jargon version of N. It was probably
part of the N. vocabulary carried to the Columbia River by the traders
which contributed about 20 basic words to the Chinook Jargon. I say
'probably' (here and above) because nobody has suggested a better etymology;
but exactly where the '-tlatch' part came from is still unclear.
-tlatch ~ -tlaxy(u)a
The (u) makes it a show, dog show, talent show = shower/sievings, compete/xyuambuat/combat

Sorry, no clearer.

A potlatch was a show. Your claims are shows too, meant to score points among your competing Neo-etymological peers. Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?

Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega. You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
No, they are not. And daisy-chaining three words does not prove the contrary.
Ross, you are still reading scripture and lacing dead flora. I guess it must entertain you more than listening and ascertaining patterns of prehistoric language. To each his own.

Well, that's what I've said ever since you arrived here. Your "ascertaining"
pastime obviously entertains you more than learning anything about
the actual relations among present-day words and languages. So enjoy yourself.
The past informs the present, usually the present distorts the past, so I listen to both the linguistic etymological taproot (mothers' milk) and to the branches (~Franz's level) and twigs & leaves(~Your's, Peter's, Yusuf's, etc. level). It sounds better that way, a temporal acoustic & semantic symphony. Unfortunately, some don't hear, too busy reading.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
gu.pot ~ qa.biich ~ ka.metip ~ all rooted via xya.mbuat ~ feast ~ ce.remony-ce.lebrate

Xy(u)ambuatlaxy(u)

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Swahili - from Ki-Ngozi Bantu
Herdsman herds meat, festivals have meat.

I never doubted your ability to string them together.

Aside from a few modern marketing schemes like The Great Pumpkin Festival, most traditional feasts and festivals like Hari Raya feature large amounts of fresh meat, a major draw to community members & guests, often the meat is "donated" in some way with acknowledgement & social status. Neolithic herdsmen were certainly involved in this, just as Paleolithic large-game hunters were at an earlier period.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Potlatch - It is a give-away but *always* as part of a feast, not just "giving" in general.

That is the meaning of the English word. I was telling you about its
origin, in words which mean "give in general".

" Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
'give' (pachitl). "

Do you have verification of that?
The word comes from the Chinook Jargon, meaning "to give away" or "a gift"; originally from the Nuu-chah-nulth word paɬaˑč, to make a ceremonial gift in a potlatch.[1]

Right about the first part, not the second. Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) paɬaˑč
is a noun, a (re-)borrowing from Chinook Jargon.
Give/gave a gift ~
He gifted her a watch
Carlos said often verbs were nouns first.

A well known fact; I'm surprised you needed Carlos to tell you.
There were no nouns or verbs in early human language, milk(y) preceding such concepts. Carlos has helped me to understand many Neo-etymological paradigms which have little relevance to ancient human language evolution, as has Dan Everett. You have often inadvertently confirmed them.
does not follow that every noun is (or was once) a verb or vice versa.
So your Wiki source gave an incorrect gloss for the Nuu-chah-nulth word,
and missed the fact that the CJ word was its source.
You claim, based on probability, not certainty.

No, based on a very reliable dictionary, as well as internal evidence.
If anything in the present discussion has been based on "certainty",
I'd be grateful if you could point it out.

About the Wiki source: The footnote (to Harkin's article in the Int'l
Encyclopedia of Soc & Behav Sciences) is somewhat misleading. What
Harkin actually says is:

‘Potlatch’ derives from the Chinook jargon word patshatl, to give.

He's got the gloss right, but the form patshatl does not exist.
The CJ word is palach or paɬach (using the orthography of the
Grand Ronde dictionary).

And Harkin does not mention a Nuu-chah-nulth source word. If you
click on "Talk" you can see some discussion among the pseudonymous
editors about this confused situation. So someone else has seen fit
to insert the reference to N. paɬaˑč, which is not the source. There's
also a reference there to OED, which I find has the etymology about
as clear as one could wish:

< Chinook Jargon pátlač to give, a gift, a giving-away ceremony
< Nootka Jargon pa'chēētle, pa'chatle to give, give me (J. Cook,
1778 or earlier), pah-chilt (J. R. Jewitt, 1820) < Nootka p̓ačiƛ
to make a ceremonial gift in a potlatch.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
There is a N. verb p'a 'potlatch, make a ceremonial gift during the
potlatch ceremony' (from Stonham's dictionary, 2005). This was taken
by the early fur traders, with an aspectual suffix, as 'pachitl', and generalized to mean 'give' in their jargon version of N. It was probably
part of the N. vocabulary carried to the Columbia River by the traders
which contributed about 20 basic words to the Chinook Jargon. I say
'probably' (here and above) because nobody has suggested a better etymology;
but exactly where the '-tlatch' part came from is still unclear.
-tlatch ~ -tlaxy(u)a
The (u) makes it a show, dog show, talent show = shower/sievings, compete/xyuambuat/combat

Sorry, no clearer.
A potlatch was a show. Your claims are shows too, meant to score points among your competing Neo-etymological peers.

No, they're meant to point out errors in the data you present. But as you
admit, you don't care.

Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.

Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.

Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

[Daud Deden]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
No, they are not. And daisy-chaining three words does not prove the contrary.
Ross, you are still reading scripture and lacing dead flora. I guess it must entertain you more than listening and ascertaining patterns of prehistoric language. To each his own.

Well, that's what I've said ever since you arrived here. Your "ascertaining"
pastime obviously entertains you more than learning anything about
the actual relations among present-day words and languages. So enjoy yourself.
The past informs the present, usually the present distorts the past, so I listen to both the linguistic etymological taproot (mothers' milk) and to the branches (~Franz's level) and twigs & leaves(~Your's, Peter's, Yusuf's, etc. level). It sounds better that way, a temporal acoustic & semantic symphony. Unfortunately, some don't hear, too busy reading.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
gu.pot ~ qa.biich ~ ka.metip ~ all rooted via xya.mbuat ~ feast ~ ce.remony-ce.lebrate

Xy(u)ambuatlaxy(u)

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Swahili - from Ki-Ngozi Bantu
Herdsman herds meat, festivals have meat.

I never doubted your ability to string them together.

Aside from a few modern marketing schemes like The Great Pumpkin Festival, most traditional feasts and festivals like Hari Raya feature large amounts of fresh meat, a major draw to community members & guests, often the meat is "donated" in some way with acknowledgement & social status. Neolithic herdsmen were certainly involved in this, just as Paleolithic large-game hunters were at an earlier period.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Potlatch - It is a give-away but *always* as part of a feast, not just "giving" in general.

That is the meaning of the English word. I was telling you about its
origin, in words which mean "give in general".

" Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
'give' (pachitl). "

Do you have verification of that?
The word comes from the Chinook Jargon, meaning "to give away" or "a gift"; originally from the Nuu-chah-nulth word paɬaˑč, to make a ceremonial gift in a potlatch.[1]

Right about the first part, not the second. Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) paɬaˑč
is a noun, a (re-)borrowing from Chinook Jargon.
Give/gave a gift ~
He gifted her a watch
Carlos said often verbs were nouns first.

A well known fact; I'm surprised you needed Carlos to tell you.
There were no nouns or verbs in early human language, milk(y) preceding such concepts. Carlos has helped me to understand many Neo-etymological paradigms which have little relevance to ancient human language evolution, as has Dan Everett. You have often inadvertently confirmed them.
does not follow that every noun is (or was once) a verb or vice versa.
So your Wiki source gave an incorrect gloss for the Nuu-chah-nulth word,
and missed the fact that the CJ word was its source.
You claim, based on probability, not certainty.

No, based on a very reliable dictionary

Go beyond dictionaries, Ross. Think.

, as well as internal evidence.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
If anything in the present discussion has been based on "certainty",
I'd be grateful if you could point it out.
About the Wiki source: The footnote (to Harkin's article in the Int'l
Encyclopedia of Soc & Behav Sciences) is somewhat misleading. What
‘Potlatch’ derives from the Chinook jargon word patshatl, to give.
He's got the gloss right, but the form patshatl does not exist.
The CJ word is palach or paɬach (using the orthography of the
Grand Ronde dictionary).
And Harkin does not mention a Nuu-chah-nulth source word. If you
click on "Talk" you can see some discussion among the pseudonymous
editors about this confused situation. So someone else has seen fit
to insert the reference to N. paɬaˑč, which is not the source. There's
also a reference there to OED, which I find has the etymology about
< Chinook Jargon pátlač to give, a gift, a giving-away ceremony
< Nootka Jargon pa'chēētle, pa'chatle to give, give me (J. Cook,
1778 or earlier), pah-chilt (J. R. Jewitt, 1820) < Nootka p̓ačiƛ
to make a ceremonial gift in a potlatch.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
There is a N. verb p'a 'potlatch, make a ceremonial gift during the
potlatch ceremony' (from Stonham's dictionary, 2005). This was taken
by the early fur traders, with an aspectual suffix, as 'pachitl', and generalized to mean 'give' in their jargon version of N. It was probably
part of the N. vocabulary carried to the Columbia River by the traders
which contributed about 20 basic words to the Chinook Jargon. I say
'probably' (here and above) because nobody has suggested a better etymology;
but exactly where the '-tlatch' part came from is still unclear.
-tlatch ~ -tlaxy(u)a
The (u) makes it a show, dog show, talent show = shower/sievings, compete/xyuambuat/combat

Sorry, no clearer.
A potlatch was a show. Your claims are shows too, meant to score points among your competing Neo-etymological peers.

No, they're meant to point out errors in the data you present.

From a Neo-etymological perspective, which is not particularly important to me. Dictionaries are full of that stuff.

But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

Are you monolingual?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
No, they are not. And daisy-chaining three words does not prove the contrary.
Ross, you are still reading scripture and lacing dead flora. I guess it must entertain you more than listening and ascertaining patterns of prehistoric language. To each his own.

Well, that's what I've said ever since you arrived here. Your "ascertaining"
pastime obviously entertains you more than learning anything about
the actual relations among present-day words and languages. So enjoy yourself.
The past informs the present, usually the present distorts the past, so I listen to both the linguistic etymological taproot (mothers' milk) and to the branches (~Franz's level) and twigs & leaves(~Your's, Peter's, Yusuf's, etc. level). It sounds better that way, a temporal acoustic & semantic symphony. Unfortunately, some don't hear, too busy reading.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
gu.pot ~ qa.biich ~ ka.metip ~ all rooted via xya.mbuat ~ feast ~ ce.remony-ce.lebrate

Xy(u)ambuatlaxy(u)

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Swahili - from Ki-Ngozi Bantu
Herdsman herds meat, festivals have meat.

I never doubted your ability to string them together.

Aside from a few modern marketing schemes like The Great Pumpkin Festival, most traditional feasts and festivals like Hari Raya feature large amounts of fresh meat, a major draw to community members & guests, often the meat is "donated" in some way with acknowledgement & social status. Neolithic herdsmen were certainly involved in this, just as Paleolithic large-game hunters were at an earlier period.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
Potlatch - It is a give-away but *always* as part of a feast, not just "giving" in general.

That is the meaning of the English word. I was telling you about its
origin, in words which mean "give in general".

" Potlatch is Chinook Jargon, most likely based on the Nootka word for

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
'give' (pachitl). "

Do you have verification of that?
The word comes from the Chinook Jargon, meaning "to give away" or "a gift"; originally from the Nuu-chah-nulth word paɬaˑč, to make a ceremonial gift in a potlatch.[1]

Right about the first part, not the second. Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) paɬaˑč
is a noun, a (re-)borrowing from Chinook Jargon.
Give/gave a gift ~
He gifted her a watch
Carlos said often verbs were nouns first.

A well known fact; I'm surprised you needed Carlos to tell you.
There were no nouns or verbs in early human language, milk(y) preceding such concepts. Carlos has helped me to understand many Neo-etymological paradigms which have little relevance to ancient human language evolution, as has Dan Everett. You have often inadvertently confirmed them.
does not follow that every noun is (or was once) a verb or vice versa.
So your Wiki source gave an incorrect gloss for the Nuu-chah-nulth word,
and missed the fact that the CJ word was its source.
You claim, based on probability, not certainty.

No, based on a very reliable dictionary

Go beyond dictionaries, Ross. Think.

I do plenty of thinking, thanks. If the dictionary gave me inadequate
information, or information I had some reason to doubt, "going beyond"
would be looking at other sources, or trying to get in touch with a native speaker. Apparently for you it's just "thinking". So exactly how would "thinking" lead one to conclude that the dictionary was wrong?

Post by Daud Deden
, as well as internal evidence.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
If anything in the present discussion has been based on "certainty",
I'd be grateful if you could point it out.
About the Wiki source: The footnote (to Harkin's article in the Int'l
Encyclopedia of Soc & Behav Sciences) is somewhat misleading. What
‘Potlatch’ derives from the Chinook jargon word patshatl, to give.
He's got the gloss right, but the form patshatl does not exist.
The CJ word is palach or paɬach (using the orthography of the
Grand Ronde dictionary).
And Harkin does not mention a Nuu-chah-nulth source word. If you
click on "Talk" you can see some discussion among the pseudonymous
editors about this confused situation. So someone else has seen fit
to insert the reference to N. paɬaˑč, which is not the source. There's
also a reference there to OED, which I find has the etymology about
< Chinook Jargon pátlač to give, a gift, a giving-away ceremony
< Nootka Jargon pa'chēētle, pa'chatle to give, give me (J. Cook,
1778 or earlier), pah-chilt (J. R. Jewitt, 1820) < Nootka p̓ačiƛ
to make a ceremonial gift in a potlatch.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
There is a N. verb p'a 'potlatch, make a ceremonial gift during the
potlatch ceremony' (from Stonham's dictionary, 2005). This was taken
by the early fur traders, with an aspectual suffix, as 'pachitl', and generalized to mean 'give' in their jargon version of N. It was probably
part of the N. vocabulary carried to the Columbia River by the traders
which contributed about 20 basic words to the Chinook Jargon. I say
'probably' (here and above) because nobody has suggested a better etymology;
but exactly where the '-tlatch' part came from is still unclear.
-tlatch ~ -tlaxy(u)a
The (u) makes it a show, dog show, talent show = shower/sievings, compete/xyuambuat/combat

Sorry, no clearer.
A potlatch was a show. Your claims are shows too, meant to score points among your competing Neo-etymological peers.

No, they're meant to point out errors in the data you present.

From a Neo-etymological perspective, which is not particularly important to me. Dictionaries are full of that stuff.

Yes, I can see that since you believe all languages are full of relics
from proto-human or whatever you call it, it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.

Post by Daud Deden
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.

Post by Daud Deden
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.

[Daud Deden]

I do plenty of thinking, thanks. If the dictionary gave me inadequate
information, or information I had some reason to doubt, "going beyond"
would be looking at other sources, or trying to get in touch with a native speaker. Apparently for you it's just "thinking".

You inherently redefine what I say, unfortunately. You don't publish dictionaries, do you?


So exactly how would "thinking" lead one to conclude that the dictionary was wrong?

I don't know where you came up with that one.

- show quoted text -
Yes, I can see that since you believe all languages are full of relics

A word I've never used at Sci.lang.

from proto-human or whatever you call it,

I guess you mean 'human language'.

it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies

Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.

in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.

Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.

No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap root of human language, mothers' milk.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?

Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.

I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back further than scripture.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I do plenty of thinking, thanks. If the dictionary gave me inadequate
information, or information I had some reason to doubt, "going beyond"
would be looking at other sources, or trying to get in touch with a native speaker. Apparently for you it's just "thinking".
You inherently redefine what I say, unfortunately. You don't publish dictionaries, do you?
So exactly how would "thinking" lead one to conclude that the dictionary was wrong?
I don't know where you came up with that one.

I'm trying to make sense of your exhortation: "Go beyond dictionaries,
Ross. Think." You could help by explaining just what sort of "thinking"
you had in mind. But I'm not optimistic; your record of eplaining things
here is pretty poor.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
- show quoted text -
Yes, I can see that since you believe all languages are full of relics
A word I've never used at Sci.lang.
from proto-human or whatever you call it,
I guess you mean 'human language'.

No, I mean "prehistoric language" as you described it recently.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't. If you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false, you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true. And "Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't
work either.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.

[DKleinecke]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I do plenty of thinking, thanks. If the dictionary gave me inadequate
information, or information I had some reason to doubt, "going beyond"
would be looking at other sources, or trying to get in touch with a native speaker. Apparently for you it's just "thinking".
You inherently redefine what I say, unfortunately. You don't publish dictionaries, do you?
So exactly how would "thinking" lead one to conclude that the dictionary was wrong?
I don't know where you came up with that one.

I'm trying to make sense of your exhortation: "Go beyond dictionaries,
Ross. Think." You could help by explaining just what sort of "thinking"
you had in mind. But I'm not optimistic; your record of eplaining things
here is pretty poor.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
- show quoted text -
Yes, I can see that since you believe all languages are full of relics
A word I've never used at Sci.lang.
from proto-human or whatever you call it,
I guess you mean 'human language'.

No, I mean "prehistoric language" as you described it recently.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't. If you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false, you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true. And "Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't
work either.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.

My conclusion is that DD is a nutcase. Not a very interesting one -
but a very busy. He has collected a lot of badly-documented
data and is mushing around trying to make sense of it.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I do plenty of thinking, thanks. If the dictionary gave me inadequate
information, or information I had some reason to doubt, "going beyond"
would be looking at other sources, or trying to get in touch with a native speaker. Apparently for you it's just "thinking".
You inherently redefine what I say, unfortunately. You don't publish dictionaries, do you?
So exactly how would "thinking" lead one to conclude that the dictionary was wrong?
I don't know where you came up with that one.

I'm trying to make sense of your exhortation: "Go beyond dictionaries,
Ross. Think." You could help by explaining just what sort of "thinking"
you had in mind. But I'm not optimistic; your record of eplaining things
here is pretty poor.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
- show quoted text -
Yes, I can see that since you believe all languages are full of relics
A word I've never used at Sci.lang.
from proto-human or whatever you call it,
I guess you mean 'human language'.

No, I mean "prehistoric language" as you described it recently.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't. If you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false, you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true. And "Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't
work either.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.

My conclusion is that DD is a nutcase. Not a very interesting one -
but a very busy. He has collected a lot of badly-documented
data and is mushing around trying to make sense of it.

He is just another Franz, but, nicely enough, a Franz who is not ganging up with Franz. Maybe they will destroy each other :D

[Daud Deden]

MW, ad hominims are the refuge of the ignorant and petty, best not advertise your intellectual & emotional deficits here at Sci.lang.

Franz is a Magdalenian storyteller, I am a Paleo-etymologist.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by Daud Deden
MW, ad hominims are the refuge of the ignorant and petty, best not advertise your intellectual & emotional deficits here at Sci.lang.
Franz is a Magdalenian storyteller, I am a Paleo-etymologist.

No, Franz is a poet, and DD, you're a jerk.
A.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

Post by DKleinecke
My conclusion is that DD is a nutcase. Not a very interesting one -
but a very busy. He has collected a lot of badly-documented
data and is mushing around trying to make sense of it.

He is just another Franz, but, nicely enough, a Franz who is not ganging up with Franz. Maybe they will destroy each other :D

Franz is a poet who believes he's a scientist.
DD is just a piece of shit.
A.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
He is just another Franz, but, nicely enough, a Franz who is not ganging up with Franz. Maybe they will destroy each other :D

The false Slav but genuine slave to his obsession with me stalks me for
meanwhile eleven and a half years. Encountering me he realized that his
knowledge is hardly functional. He can't go for a testcase of mine, for
example the triple test case regarding the name of Zeus, the Indo-European
homeland, and words for the horse. He lacks the knowledge and ideas to do
so. A barren mind combined with a burning ambition often result in power
games.

[Daud Deden]

DK, DE claimed Pirahã came from Peru.

A group of Peru's southern rainforest inhabitants ...

Read more at https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/10/inca-citadel-remains-found-in-cusco.html#GDfvbP2xYH86hD0Y.99

DE is likely correct.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Daud Deden
DK, DE claimed Pirahã came from Peru.
A group of Peru's southern rainforest inhabitants ...
Read more at https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/10/inca-citadel-remains-found-in-cusco.html#GDfvbP2xYH86hD0Y.99
DE is likely correct.

Give me a reference for where DE said. If he really did.

The Peruvian Montaña is something I know more about than DE does.

[Daud Deden]

DE suggested that the Pirahã came from Peru in Don't sleep... He didn't mention mountains. Are there still people in Peruvian rainforests constructing bark canoes? That would be significant.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Daud Deden
DE suggested that the Pirahã came from Peru in Don't sleep... He didn't mention mountains. Are there still people in Peruvian rainforests constructing bark canoes? That would be significant.

Montaña does not mean mountains. It is the foothill region between
the high mountains and the flat lowlands. So far as I know no bark
canoes were used but I haven't studied the material culture of all
the tribes (I was, and still am, doing historical linguistics). In
my view bark canoes are more sophisticated trait than dugouts and
assuming the Pirahã use bark canoes they have adopted the more
"advanced" (and by implication less-primitive) technology available
to them. I hope they can survive DE.

[Daud Deden]

DK, bark canoes are far simpler to craft than dugouts without adzes, and preceded them, both evolved from sago processing in Papua, and both followed coracle usage. The Pirahã & Yahgan did not make tools like adzes, nor did other H & G nomadic people.
The Pirahã seem to have thrived with DE's acquaintance.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Daud Deden
DK, bark canoes are far simpler to craft than dugouts without adzes, and preceded them, both evolved from sago processing in Papua, and both followed coracle usage. The Pirahã & Yahgan did not make tools like adzes, nor did other H & G nomadic people.
The Pirahã seem to have thrived with DE's acquaintance.

(1) What happened in Papua is irrelevant to what happened in
South America.

(2) The Pirahã do not make (according to Wkipedia) bark canoes.
They get them from their neighbors.

[Daud Deden]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Daud Deden
DK, bark canoes are far simpler to craft than dugouts without adzes, and preceded them, both evolved from sago processing in Papua, and both followed coracle usage. The Pirahã & Yahgan did not make tools like adzes, nor did other H & G nomadic people.
The Pirahã seem to have thrived with DE's acquaintance.

(1) What happened in Papua is irrelevant to what happened in
South America.

Really?

Post by DKleinecke
(2) The Pirahã do not make (according to Wkipedia) bark canoes.
They get them from their neighbors.

DE claimed they made bark canoes and got wooden dugouts & boats from other groups.

[Daud Deden]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Daud Deden
DK, bark canoes are far simpler to craft than dugouts without adzes, and preceded them, both evolved from sago processing in Papua, and both followed coracle usage. The Pirahã & Yahgan did not make tools like adzes, nor did other H & G nomadic people.
The Pirahã seem to have thrived with DE's acquaintance.

(1) What happened in Papua is irrelevant to what happened in
South America.

False.

Post by DKleinecke
(2) The Pirahã do not make (according to Wkipedia) bark canoes.
They get them from their neighbors.

False.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I do plenty of thinking, thanks. If the dictionary gave me inadequate
information, or information I had some reason to doubt, "going beyond"
would be looking at other sources, or trying to get in touch with a
native speaker. Apparently for you it's just "thinking".
You inherently redefine what I say, unfortunately. You don't publish
dictionaries, do you?
So exactly how would "thinking" lead one to conclude that the dictionary was wrong?
I don't know where you came up with that one.

I'm trying to make sense of your exhortation: "Go beyond dictionaries,
Ross. Think." You could help by explaining just what sort of "thinking"
you had in mind. But I'm not optimistic; your record of eplaining things
here is pretty poor.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
- show quoted text -
Yes, I can see that since you believe all languages are full of relics
A word I've never used at Sci.lang.
from proto-human or whatever you call it,
I guess you mean 'human language'.

No, I mean "prehistoric language" as you described it recently.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot,
completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of
invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of
universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap
root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't. If you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false, you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true. And "Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't
work either.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own
prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit
for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
H
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back
further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.

My conclusion is that DD is a nutcase. Not a very interesting one -
but a very busy. He has collected a lot of badly-documented
data and is mushing around trying to make sense of it.

He seems to be tring to imitate Merritt Ruhlen.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by DKleinecke

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I do plenty of thinking, thanks. If the dictionary gave me inadequate
information, or information I had some reason to doubt, "going beyond"
would be looking at other sources, or trying to get in touch with a
native speaker. Apparently for you it's just "thinking".
You inherently redefine what I say, unfortunately. You don't publish
dictionaries, do you?
So exactly how would "thinking" lead one to conclude that the dictionary was wrong?
I don't know where you came up with that one.

I'm trying to make sense of your exhortation: "Go beyond dictionaries,
Ross. Think." You could help by explaining just what sort of "thinking"
you had in mind. But I'm not optimistic; your record of eplaining things
here is pretty poor.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
- show quoted text -
Yes, I can see that since you believe all languages are full of relics
A word I've never used at Sci.lang.
from proto-human or whatever you call it,
I guess you mean 'human language'.

No, I mean "prehistoric language" as you described it recently.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot,
completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of
invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of
universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap
root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't. If you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false, you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true. And "Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't
work either.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own
prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit
for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
H
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back
further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.

My conclusion is that DD is a nutcase. Not a very interesting one -
but a very busy. He has collected a lot of badly-documented
data and is mushing around trying to make sense of it.

He seems to be tring to imitate Merritt Ruhlen.
--
athel

I would not know how to imitate Merrit Ruhlen. Does he use word strings to collate, compare and convey etymological information?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

[ ... ]
My conclusion is that DD is a nutcase. Not a very interesting one -

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by DKleinecke
but a very busy. He has collected a lot of badly-documented
data and is mushing around trying to make sense of it.

He seems to be tring to imitate Merritt Ruhlen.
--
athel

I would not know how to imitate Merrit Ruhlen. Does he use word strings
to collate, compare and convey etymological information?

You surprise me. My experience is that most linguisticians have head of
Merritt Ruhlen, even if they mention him only to say something rude
about him. Have you heard of Joseph Greenberg, or are you trying to
construct a theory of language origins with no knowledge of what anyone
has done before?

[Peter T. Daniels]

[no, he did not]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by DKleinecke
My conclusion is that DD is a nutcase. Not a very interesting one -
but a very busy. He has collected a lot of badly-documented
data and is mushing around trying to make sense of it.

He seems to be tring to imitate Merritt Ruhlen.

I would not know how to imitate Merrit Ruhlen. Does he use word strings
to collate, compare and convey etymological information?

You surprise me. My experience is that most linguisticians have head of
Merritt Ruhlen, even if they mention him only to say something rude
about him. Have you heard of Joseph Greenberg, or are you trying to
construct a theory of language origins with no knowledge of what anyone
has done before?

NB "linguisticians" is a term invented to insult practitioners of linguistics, who are
properly called "linguists." The popular interpretation 'polyglot' is an example of polysemy
and irrelevant in context.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[no, he did not]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by DKleinecke
My conclusion is that DD is a nutcase. Not a very interesting one -
but a very busy. He has collected a lot of badly-documented
data and is mushing around trying to make sense of it.

He seems to be tring to imitate Merritt Ruhlen.

I would not know how to imitate Merrit Ruhlen. Does he use word strings
to collate, compare and convey etymological information?

You surprise me. My experience is that most linguisticians have head of
Merritt Ruhlen, even if they mention him only to say something rude
about him. Have you heard of Joseph Greenberg, or are you trying to
construct a theory of language origins with no knowledge of what anyone
has done before?

NB "linguisticians" is a term invented to insult practitioners of linguistics, who are
properly called "linguists."

Sigh. As long as Peter keeps saying this, I will have to keep pointing
out that it is untrue. See abundant documentation on sci.lang and a.u.e.
most recently in 2013.

What Peter could have said that might be true is that Athel uses
the word because he knows it annoys Peter.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[no, he did not]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by DKleinecke
My conclusion is that DD is a nutcase. Not a very interesting one -
but a very busy. He has collected a lot of badly-documented
data and is mushing around trying to make sense of it.

He seems to be tring to imitate Merritt Ruhlen.

I would not know how to imitate Merrit Ruhlen. Does he use word strings
to collate, compare and convey etymological information?

You surprise me. My experience is that most linguisticians have head of
Merritt Ruhlen, even if they mention him only to say something rude
about him. Have you heard of Joseph Greenberg, or are you trying to
construct a theory of language origins with no knowledge of what anyone
has done before?

NB "linguisticians" is a term invented to insult practitioners of linguistics, who are
properly called "linguists."

Sigh. As long as Peter keeps saying this, I will have to keep pointing
out that it is untrue. See abundant documentation on sci.lang and a.u.e.
most recently in 2013.

Without a reference?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
What Peter could have said that might be true is that Athel uses
the word because he knows it annoys Peter.

And everyone else.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[no, he did not]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by DKleinecke
My conclusion is that DD is a nutcase. Not a very interesting one -
but a very busy. He has collected a lot of badly-documented
data and is mushing around trying to make sense of it.

He seems to be tring to imitate Merritt Ruhlen.

I would not know how to imitate Merrit Ruhlen. Does he use word strings
to collate, compare and convey etymological information?

You surprise me. My experience is that most linguisticians have head of
Merritt Ruhlen, even if they mention him only to say something rude
about him. Have you heard of Joseph Greenberg, or are you trying to
construct a theory of language origins with no knowledge of what anyone
has done before?

NB "linguisticians" is a term invented to insult practitioners of linguistics, who are
properly called "linguists."

Sigh. As long as Peter keeps saying this, I will have to keep pointing
out that it is untrue. See abundant documentation on sci.lang and a.u.e.
most recently in 2013.

Without a reference?

Are you really having trouble finding it? Try the "pre-Fowler shall/will"
thread, date 5/29/13.
Or did you mean a letter attesting to my good character?

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
What Peter could have said that might be true is that Athel uses
the word because he knows it annoys Peter.

And everyone else.

That assumption of yours may be part of the problem.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

[ ... ]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels
NB "linguisticians" is a term invented to insult practitioners of linguistics, who are
properly called "linguists."

Sigh. As long as Peter keeps saying this, I will have to keep pointing
out that it is untrue. See abundant documentation on sci.lang and a.u.e.
most recently in 2013.
What Peter could have said that might be true is that Athel uses
the word because he knows it annoys Peter.

That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves. So far
as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned it still
means what it has always meant, namely polyglot. So if the specialists
in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians they need to come
up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a generally understood
meaning.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

[ ... ]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels
NB "linguisticians" is a term invented to insult practitioners of
linguistics, who are
properly called "linguists."

Sigh. As long as Peter keeps saying this, I will have to keep pointing
out that it is untrue. See abundant documentation on sci.lang and a.u.e.
most recently in 2013.
What Peter could have said that might be true is that Athel uses
the word because he knows it annoys Peter.

That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves. So far
as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned it still
means what it has always meant, namely polyglot.

I think that needs qualifying. During the 2013 discussion I looked at
the use of "linguist" in the COHA corpus for the first decade of this
century. My impression was that the "linguistics" sense was becoming
the more common one, though to be sure the "polyglot" sense was still
around. (This is written American usage.)

So if the specialists in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians
they need to come > up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a generally >understood meaning.

Speaking for myself, I don't object to being called a linguistician. I think
most other linguistics specialists feel the same, but like me are not about
to adopt the word. You use it, you say, for the same reason that many other people (some of them linguisticians) have used it -- to avoid the ambiguity of
"linguist". But "linguistician" has been around for more than a century,
and has had rather little uptake among the people so designated. That suggests
to me that most of them can live with the ambiguity of "linguist".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels
NB "linguisticians" is a term invented to insult practitioners of
linguistics, who are
properly called "linguists."

Sigh. As long as Peter keeps saying this, I will have to keep pointing
out that it is untrue. See abundant documentation on sci.lang and a.u.e.
most recently in 2013.
What Peter could have said that might be true is that Athel uses
the word because he knows it annoys Peter.

That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves. So far
as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned it still
means what it has always meant, namely polyglot.

I think that needs qualifying. During the 2013 discussion I looked at
the use of "linguist" in the COHA corpus for the first decade of this
century. My impression was that the "linguistics" sense was becoming
the more common one, though to be sure the "polyglot" sense was still
around. (This is written American usage.)

When, in fact, _did_ it mean 'polyglot'? In the '60s one got used to hearing "Oh, you mean
like UN translator?"

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
So if the specialists in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians
they need to come > up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a generally >understood meaning.

Speaking for myself, I don't object to being called a linguistician. I think
most other linguistics specialists feel the same, but like me are not about
to adopt the word. You use it, you say, for the same reason that many other people (some of them linguisticians) have used it -- to avoid the ambiguity of
"linguist". But "linguistician" has been around for more than a century,
and has had rather little uptake among the people so designated. That suggests
to me that most of them can live with the ambiguity of "linguist".

A corpus search for "linguistician" would be revealing.

That it was coined more than a century ago doesn't help with its present usage and connotations.

An ngram of "philologist" vs. "linguist" would also be revealing.

The principal maintainers of the "polyglot" sense seem to be the US Departments of State
and Defense -- at the Monterey languages school they train "linguists," which means people
who can speak the local languages in deployment areas. I wonder what sort of "linguists" or
interpreters they have in Niger. The BBC allowed a bit of a local official to be heard yesterday,
and he spoke clear French. But al-Qaeda or ISIS affiliates in North Africa probably don't speak French.

[Arnaud Fournet]

[ ... ]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels
NB "linguisticians" is a term invented to insult practitioners of
linguistics, who are
properly called "linguists."

Sigh. As long as Peter keeps saying this, I will have to keep pointing
out that it is untrue. See abundant documentation on sci.lang and a.u.e.
most recently in 2013.
What Peter could have said that might be true is that Athel uses
the word because he knows it annoys Peter.

That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves. So far
as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned it still
means what it has always meant, namely polyglot. So if the specialists
in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians they need to come
up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a generally understood
meaning.

what about languagist ?
A.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Arnaud Fournet

[ ... ]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

NB "linguisticians" is a term invented to insult practitioners of> >>
linguistics, who are
properly called "linguists."

Sigh. As long as Peter keeps saying this, I will have to keep pointing
out that it is untrue. See abundant documentation on sci.lang and a.u.e.
most recently in 2013.
What Peter could have said that might be true is that Athel uses
the word because he knows it annoys Peter.

That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem>
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the>
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves. So
far> as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned it
still> means what it has always meant, namely polyglot. So if the
specialists> in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians they
need to come> up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a generally
understood> meaning.

what about languagist ?
A.

I don't suppose PTD would like that any more than he likes
linguistician. But I also don't suppose you care whether he likes it or
not.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Arnaud Fournet

[ ... ]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

NB "linguisticians" is a term invented to insult practitioners of> >>
linguistics, who are
properly called "linguists."

Sigh. As long as Peter keeps saying this, I will have to keep pointing
out that it is untrue. See abundant documentation on sci.lang and a.u.e.
most recently in 2013.
What Peter could have said that might be true is that Athel uses
the word because he knows it annoys Peter.

That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem>
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the>
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves. So
far> as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned it
still> means what it has always meant, namely polyglot. So if the
specialists> in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians they
need to come> up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a generally
understood> meaning.

what about languagist ?
A.

I don't suppose PTD would like that any more than he likes
linguistician. But I also don't suppose you care whether he likes it or
not.

I don't think there is any danger of the linguists themselves
adopting any other name for themselves.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Arnaud Fournet

[ ... ]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

NB "linguisticians" is a term invented to insult practitioners of> >>
linguistics, who are
properly called "linguists."

Sigh. As long as Peter keeps saying this, I will have to keep pointing
out that it is untrue. See abundant documentation on sci.lang and a.u.e.
most recently in 2013.
What Peter could have said that might be true is that Athel uses
the word because he knows it annoys Peter.

That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem>
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the>
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves. So
far> as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned it
still> means what it has always meant, namely polyglot. So if the
specialists> in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians they
need to come> up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a generally
understood> meaning.

what about languagist ?
A.

I don't suppose PTD would like that any more than he likes
linguistician. But I also don't suppose you care whether he likes it or
not.

I don't think there is any danger of the linguists themselves
adopting any other name for themselves.

There's no danger either that PTD would become a linguist.
A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Arnaud Fournet
what about languagist ?

I don't suppose PTD would like that any more than he likes
linguistician. But I also don't suppose you care whether he likes it or
not.

I don't think there is any danger of the linguists themselves
adopting any other name for themselves.

There's no danger either that PTD would become a linguist.

Or AF a scholar.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves.

Not by much, though, according to the OED:

1.a. A person who is skilled in the learning or use of foreign
languages. Also fig. and in figurative contexts.
[citations from 1582]

†2. A bird that imitates speech and other sounds. Obs. rare.
[1593--1599]

3. An expert in or student of language or (later) linguistics; a
person who specializes in the structure or historical development of
one or more languages; a philologist.
[from 1605]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
So far as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned
it still means what it has always meant, namely polyglot. So if the
specialists in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians
they need to come up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a
generally understood meaning.

It's ironic that linguists are dogmatically opposed to prescribing
meanings of words that differ from the popular meaning *except* when
it comes to their own terminology.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves.

1.a. A person who is skilled in the learning or use of foreign
languages. Also fig. and in figurative contexts.
[citations from 1582]
†2. A bird that imitates speech and other sounds. Obs. rare.
[1593--1599]
3. An expert in or student of language or (later) linguistics; a
person who specializes in the structure or historical development of
one or more languages; a philologist.
[from 1605]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
So far as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned
it still means what it has always meant, namely polyglot. So if the
specialists in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians
they need to come up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a
generally understood meaning.

It's ironic that linguists are dogmatically opposed to prescribing
meanings of words that differ from the popular meaning *except* when
it comes to their own terminology.

You like to throw around that word "dogmatically" -- but only in this one
particular case.

And you will nowhere find a linguist suggesting that ordinary words can't be
repurposed in technical senses.

E.g. case, tense, aspect, gender, number, ...

[Adam Funk]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves.

1.a. A person who is skilled in the learning or use of foreign
languages. Also fig. and in figurative contexts.
[citations from 1582]
†2. A bird that imitates speech and other sounds. Obs. rare.
[1593--1599]
3. An expert in or student of language or (later) linguistics; a
person who specializes in the structure or historical development of
one or more languages; a philologist.
[from 1605]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
So far as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned
it still means what it has always meant, namely polyglot. So if the
specialists in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians
they need to come up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a
generally understood meaning.

It's ironic that linguists are dogmatically opposed to prescribing
meanings of words that differ from the popular meaning *except* when
it comes to their own terminology.

You like to throw around that word "dogmatically" -- but only in this one
particular case.
And you will nowhere find a linguist suggesting that ordinary words can't be
repurposed in technical senses.
E.g. case, tense, aspect, gender, number, ...

What about "epicenter" --- when people (mis)use it as a fancy word for
"center", are linguists allowed to tell them it's Wrong?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Adam Funk
It's ironic that linguists are dogmatically opposed to prescribing
meanings of words that differ from the popular meaning *except* when
it comes to their own terminology.

You like to throw around that word "dogmatically" -- but only in this one
particular case.
And you will nowhere find a linguist suggesting that ordinary words can't be
repurposed in technical senses.
E.g. case, tense, aspect, gender, number, ...

What about "epicenter" --- when people (mis)use it as a fancy word for
"center", are linguists allowed to tell them it's Wrong?

Of course not. Obviously the word filled a need that wasn't filled by any other word.

It would be "wrong" for a geologist to misapply it in referring to an earthquake.

For instance if a linguist called a time-inflection of a verb "case."

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves.

1.a. A person who is skilled in the learning or use of foreign
languages. Also fig. and in figurative contexts.
[citations from 1582]
†2. A bird that imitates speech and other sounds. Obs. rare.
[1593--1599]
3. An expert in or student of language or (later) linguistics; a
person who specializes in the structure or historical development of
one or more languages; a philologist.
[from 1605]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
So far as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned
it still means what it has always meant, namely polyglot. So if the
specialists in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians
they need to come up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a
generally understood meaning.

It's ironic that linguists are dogmatically opposed to prescribing
meanings of words that differ from the popular meaning *except* when
it comes to their own terminology.

You like to throw around that word "dogmatically" -- but only in this one
particular case.
And you will nowhere find a linguist suggesting that ordinary words can't be
repurposed in technical senses.
E.g. case, tense, aspect, gender, number, ...

There is no problem if linguisticians want to use "tense" in a
technical way among themselves, though it would have been better to
introduce a new term, like "time inflection", that didn't conflict with
everyday usage. The problem comes when they insist that ordinary people
can't use it with the meaning it always had, and say, for example, that
English has no future tense. Chemists, on the whole, invent wholly new
words so no conflict arises. Mathematicians, on the other hand, do as
linguisticians and often repurpose ordinary words, like "set",
"category", etc. However, they don't try to tell us that we mustn't use
these words in their everyday senses.

Post by Adam Funk
What about "epicenter" --- when people (mis)use it as a fancy word for
"center", are linguists allowed to tell them it's Wrong?

What about "DNA": when people misuse it as a fancy word for
"characteristic", are linguisticians allowed to tell them it's Wrong?

Then there is "quantum leap" for a big change.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves.

1.a. A person who is skilled in the learning or use of foreign
languages. Also fig. and in figurative contexts.
[citations from 1582]
†2. A bird that imitates speech and other sounds. Obs. rare.
[1593--1599]
3. An expert in or student of language or (later) linguistics; a
person who specializes in the structure or historical development of
one or more languages; a philologist.
[from 1605]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
So far as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned
it still means what it has always meant, namely polyglot. So if the
specialists in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians
they need to come up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a
generally understood meaning.

It's ironic that linguists are dogmatically opposed to prescribing
meanings of words that differ from the popular meaning *except* when
it comes to their own terminology.

You like to throw around that word "dogmatically" -- but only in this one
particular case.
And you will nowhere find a linguist suggesting that ordinary words can't be
repurposed in technical senses.
E.g. case, tense, aspect, gender, number, ...

There is no problem if linguisticians want to use "tense" in a
technical way among themselves, though it would have been better to
introduce a new term, like "time inflection", that didn't conflict with
everyday usage. The problem comes when they insist that ordinary people
can't use it with the meaning it always had, and say, for example, that
English has no future tense. Chemists, on the whole, invent wholly new
words so no conflict arises. Mathematicians, on the other hand, do as
linguisticians and often repurpose ordinary words, like "set",
"category", etc. However, they don't try to tell us that we mustn't use
these words in their everyday senses.

Post by Adam Funk
What about "epicenter" --- when people (mis)use it as a fancy word for
"center", are linguists allowed to tell them it's Wrong?

What about "DNA": when people misuse it as a fancy word for
"characteristic", are linguisticians allowed to tell them it's Wrong?
Then there is "quantum leap" for a big change.

Why would the know-nothing dilettante attempt to participate in a discussion
in which he refuses to look at the contributions of one of the discussants?

[DKleinecke]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
That's true to some degree, but it's not the only reason. The problem
is that "linguist" had a generally understood meaning before the
linguisticians decided to appropriate it to describe themselves.

1.a. A person who is skilled in the learning or use of foreign
languages. Also fig. and in figurative contexts.
[citations from 1582]
†2. A bird that imitates speech and other sounds. Obs. rare.
[1593--1599]
3. An expert in or student of language or (later) linguistics; a
person who specializes in the structure or historical development of
one or more languages; a philologist.
[from 1605]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
So far as the overwhelming majority of English-speakers is concerned
it still means what it has always meant, namely polyglot. So if the
specialists in linguistics don't want to be called linguisticians
they need to come up with a new word that hasn't alrady got a
generally understood meaning.

It's ironic that linguists are dogmatically opposed to prescribing
meanings of words that differ from the popular meaning *except* when
it comes to their own terminology.

You like to throw around that word "dogmatically" -- but only in this one
particular case.
And you will nowhere find a linguist suggesting that ordinary words can't be
repurposed in technical senses.
E.g. case, tense, aspect, gender, number, ...

There is no problem if linguisticians want to use "tense" in a
technical way among themselves, though it would have been better to
introduce a new term, like "time inflection", that didn't conflict with
everyday usage. The problem comes when they insist that ordinary people
can't use it with the meaning it always had, and say, for example, that
English has no future tense. Chemists, on the whole, invent wholly new
words so no conflict arises. Mathematicians, on the other hand, do as
linguisticians and often repurpose ordinary words, like "set",
"category", etc. However, they don't try to tell us that we mustn't use
these words in their everyday senses.

Post by Adam Funk
What about "epicenter" --- when people (mis)use it as a fancy word for
"center", are linguists allowed to tell them it's Wrong?

What about "DNA": when people misuse it as a fancy word for
"characteristic", are linguisticians allowed to tell them it's Wrong?
Then there is "quantum leap" for a big change.

Why would the know-nothing dilettante attempt to participate in a discussion
in which he refuses to look at the contributions of one of the discussants?

"Wrong" isn't a linguistic concept. Ungrammatical is - it
means not formed according to the generally accepted grammar
rules of the language in question. But whether a particular
word is used correctly or not is a rather intricate question
in pragmatics. Linguists these days spend very little time or
effort on the meanings of words.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Adam Funk
It's ironic that linguists are dogmatically opposed to prescribing
meanings of words that differ from the popular meaning *except* when
it comes to their own terminology.

You like to throw around that word "dogmatically" -- but only in this one
particular case.
And you will nowhere find a linguist suggesting that ordinary words can't be
repurposed in technical senses.
E.g. case, tense, aspect, gender, number, ...

There is no problem if linguisticians want to use "tense" in a
technical way among themselves, though it would have been better to
introduce a new term, like "time inflection", that didn't conflict with
everyday usage. The problem comes when they insist that ordinary people
can't use it with the meaning it always had, and say, for example, that
English has no future tense. Chemists, on the whole, invent wholly new
words so no conflict arises.

"mole" ;-)

https://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e635/

I'm sorry to see that's been discontinued --- mine is wearing out.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Mathematicians, on the other hand, do as
linguisticians and often repurpose ordinary words, like "set",
"category", etc. However, they don't try to tell us that we mustn't use
these words in their everyday senses.

Post by Adam Funk
What about "epicenter" --- when people (mis)use it as a fancy word for
"center", are linguists allowed to tell them it's Wrong?

What about "DNA": when people misuse it as a fancy word for
"characteristic", are linguisticians allowed to tell them it's Wrong?
Then there is "quantum leap" for a big change.

All those people (epicenter, DNA, & quantum leap) should be slapped.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Adam Funk
It's ironic that linguists are dogmatically opposed to prescribing
meanings of words that differ from the popular meaning *except* when
it comes to their own terminology.

You like to throw around that word "dogmatically" -- but only in this one
particular case.
And you will nowhere find a linguist suggesting that ordinary words can't be
repurposed in technical senses.
E.g. case, tense, aspect, gender, number, ...

There is no problem if linguisticians want to use "tense" in a
technical way among themselves, though it would have been better to
introduce a new term, like "time inflection", that didn't conflict with
everyday usage. The problem comes when they insist that ordinary people
can't use it with the meaning it always had, and say, for example, that
English has no future tense. Chemists, on the whole, invent wholly new
words so no conflict arises.

"mole" ;-)

Well, I did say "on the whole", but anyway, the chemist's mole is not
derived from any other sort of mole and is in no danger of being
confused with them.

Post by Adam Funk
https://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e635/
I'm sorry to see that's been discontinued --- mine is wearing out.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Mathematicians, on the other hand, do as
linguisticians and often repurpose ordinary words, like "set",
"category", etc. However, they don't try to tell us that we mustn't use
these words in their everyday senses.

Post by Adam Funk
What about "epicenter" --- when people (mis)use it as a fancy word for
"center", are linguists allowed to tell them it's Wrong?

What about "DNA": when people misuse it as a fancy word for
"characteristic", are linguisticians allowed to tell them it's Wrong?
Then there is "quantum leap" for a big change.

All those people (epicenter, DNA, & quantum leap) should be slapped.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
There is no problem if linguisticians want to use "tense" in a
technical way among themselves, though it would have been better to
introduce a new term, like "time inflection", that didn't conflict with
everyday usage. The problem comes when they insist that ordinary people
can't use it with the meaning it always had, and say, for example, that
English has no future tense. Chemists, on the whole, invent wholly new
words so no conflict arises.

"mole" ;-)

Well, I did say "on the whole", but anyway, the chemist's mole is not
derived from any other sort of mole and is in no danger of being
confused with them.

One heck of a mess:

<https://what-if.xkcd.com/4/>

[António Marques]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
There is no problem if linguisticians want to use "tense" in a
technical way among themselves, though it would have been better to
introduce a new term, like "time inflection", that didn't conflict with
everyday usage. The problem comes when they insist that ordinary people
can't use it with the meaning it always had, and say, for example, that
English has no future tense. Chemists, on the whole, invent wholly new
words so no conflict arises.

"mole" ;-)

Well, I did say "on the whole", but anyway, the chemist's mole is not
derived from any other sort of mole and is in no danger of being
confused with them.

<https://what-if.xkcd.com/4/>

So that's what they call 'intellectual' masturbation.

[Helmut Richter]

Post by Adam Funk
What about "epicenter" --- when people (mis)use it as a fancy word for
"center", are linguists allowed to tell them it's Wrong?

Why just linguists and not also carpenters, lawyers or busdrivers?

Perhaps linguists even *less* than others because they should know that
a word's etymology can be a hint to its meaning but does in no way
determine the meaning.

I find it more interesting when specialists have given a normal word a
new meaning overlapping with the common one, for instance "berry" which,
for biologists, includes bananas but excludes strawberries and raspberries.

I can also not hear arguments along the lines "the ancient peoples did
not know that a whale is not a fish". This is not true. For them, a fish
was an animal which can only live in the water and whose body is fully
adopted to living there (for German "Fisch": ... and whose body is more
or less streamlined for quick movement in the water, thus excluding
jellyfish, starfish and shellfish). It is not their fault that thousands
of years later, biologists invented a new definition of fish.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Helmut Richter

Post by Adam Funk
What about "epicenter" --- when people (mis)use it as a fancy word for
"center", are linguists allowed to tell them it's Wrong?

Why just linguists and not also carpenters, lawyers or busdrivers?
Perhaps linguists even *less* than others because they should know that
a word's etymology can be a hint to its meaning but does in no way
determine the meaning.
I find it more interesting when specialists have given a normal word a
new meaning overlapping with the common one, for instance "berry" which,
for biologists, includes bananas but excludes strawberries and raspberries.
I can also not hear arguments along the lines "the ancient peoples did
not know that a whale is not a fish". This is not true. For them, a fish
was an animal which can only live in the water and whose body is fully
adopted to living there (for German "Fisch": ... and whose body is more
or less streamlined for quick movement in the water, thus excluding
jellyfish, starfish and shellfish). It is not their fault that thousands
of years later, biologists invented a new definition of fish.

What would have happened if there had been sea otters in the
Mediterranean?

[Daud Deden]

- show quoted text -
What would have happened if there had been sea otters in the
Mediterranean?
-
They'dabeenfished'ut.

[António Marques]

Post by Helmut Richter

Post by Adam Funk
What about "epicenter" --- when people (mis)use it as a fancy word for
"center", are linguists allowed to tell them it's Wrong?

Why just linguists and not also carpenters, lawyers or busdrivers?
Perhaps linguists even *less* than others because they should know that
a word's etymology can be a hint to its meaning but does in no way
determine the meaning.
I find it more interesting when specialists have given a normal word a
new meaning overlapping with the common one, for instance "berry" which,
for biologists, includes bananas but excludes strawberries and raspberries.
I can also not hear arguments along the lines "the ancient peoples did
not know that a whale is not a fish". This is not true. For them, a fish
was an animal which can only live in the water and whose body is fully
adopted to living there (for German "Fisch": ... and whose body is more
or less streamlined for quick movement in the water, thus excluding
jellyfish, starfish and shellfish). It is not their fault that thousands
of years later, biologists invented a new definition of fish.

Be happy, for according to the latest fad whales are fish again (as you and
eagles are).

This is a misguided discussion. Scientists need words and usually they try
to pinpoint existing ones in a rigorous and scientifically useful way. The
definition does not always map perfectly to what the layperson uses, but -
and this is he crux - usually he layperson has no business using the word
altogether, since it's jargon. So, yes, linguists claim that words belong
to their users - but that excludes folks who merely repeat a word they have
no experience with for effect rather than choosing something adequate from
their active vocabulary.

Of course, some words do get misused so often and so consistently that we
may as well get used to them in some contexts. In Portugal, an anatomical
structure with rubbery rather than bony consietnce gets called a
'membrane'.

The DNA thing drives me nuts. It's similar to 'is that an internet?' as to
linguistic correctness, but the only people I see using it are ignorant
smug types.

[Adam Funk]

Post by António Marques
Be happy, for according to the latest fad whales are fish again (as you and
eagles are).

;-)

Post by António Marques
This is a misguided discussion. Scientists need words and usually they try
to pinpoint existing ones in a rigorous and scientifically useful way. The
definition does not always map perfectly to what the layperson uses, but -
and this is he crux - usually he layperson has no business using the word
altogether, since it's jargon. So, yes, linguists claim that words belong
to their users - but that excludes folks who merely repeat a word they have
no experience with for effect rather than choosing something adequate from
their active vocabulary.

Yes!

Post by António Marques
Of course, some words do get misused so often and so consistently that we
may as well get used to them in some contexts. In Portugal, an anatomical
structure with rubbery rather than bony consietnce gets called a
'membrane'.
The DNA thing drives me nuts. It's similar to 'is that an internet?' as to
linguistic correctness, but the only people I see using it are ignorant
smug types.

Yes!

[Adam Funk]

Post by Helmut Richter

Post by Adam Funk
What about "epicenter" --- when people (mis)use it as a fancy word for
"center", are linguists allowed to tell them it's Wrong?

Why just linguists and not also carpenters, lawyers or busdrivers?
Perhaps linguists even *less* than others because they should know that
a word's etymology can be a hint to its meaning but does in no way
determine the meaning.

I should have phrased that differently. The problem isn't whether
linguists call it wrong, but that they try to dictate to people who
know what the technical terms mean that they (educated non-linguists)
have no right to tell the idiots they're wrong.

Post by Helmut Richter
I find it more interesting when specialists have given a normal word a
new meaning overlapping with the common one, for instance "berry" which,
for biologists, includes bananas but excludes strawberries and raspberries.
I can also not hear arguments along the lines "the ancient peoples did
not know that a whale is not a fish". This is not true. For them, a fish
was an animal which can only live in the water and whose body is fully
adopted to living there (for German "Fisch": ... and whose body is more
or less streamlined for quick movement in the water, thus excluding
jellyfish, starfish and shellfish). It is not their fault that thousands
of years later, biologists invented a new definition of fish.

FSVO "ancients peoples" --- didn't Aristotle know about marine
mammals?

[Daud Deden]

***@Greek: fish
***@Malay: fish
***@Latin: water
Air/***@Malay: water
Uisge?@ScotGael: water
***@French: water
Euxine/ocean/o-cyan

(H)uiquae? ~ wiki-***@Haw.: swift(flow/fly/swim)

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

< PIE *dhghu- (Watkins)
< PAN *Sikan (Blust), probably derived from *-kan 'eat'
< PIE *akwā
< PMP *wahiR
Old Irish uisce < *ud-sko- (same root as "water")
< aqua

Post by Daud Deden
Euxine

originally Greek Akseinos < Persian axSaina 'dark-coloured'
/ocean
Greek ōkeanós a Titan, 'divine personification of the sea'
"Greek Ōkeanós has been compared to the Vedic epithet ā-śáyāna-,
predicated of the dragon Vṛtra-, who captured the cows/rivers.
Related to this notion, the Okeanos is represented with a dragon-tail
on some early Greek vases." (Wiki, Ocean)(footnote to a work by
Ranko Matasovic, whose Celtic etymological dictionary you were
citing not long ago)
/o-
< your imagination?
cyan
< Greek kuanos, originally the name of a mineral

Post by Daud Deden
(H)uiquae?

Is that a question?


~ wiki-***@Haw.: swift(flow/fly/swim) actually just 'swift, fast, quick, rapid'
If you want to get from -q(u)- to -k- here, you're going to
have to go via -t-. But I guess that won't be a problem for the Palaeo-bus.

[Daud Deden]

< PIE *dhghu- (Watkins)

(M)ichigan/(M)ichoacan?
(F)isk/(P)escadoro?
< PAN *Sikan (Blust), probably derived from *-kan 'eat'

***@Malay:eat=
***@TerengganuMalay:eat=
***@Iban:eat
-kan in Modern Malay: to do
< PIE *akwā
< PMP *wahiR
*uaxyua wash, shower, go-flow sieve/slough/sluice/chute
Old Irish uisce < *ud-sko- (same root as "water")
*uaxyua(n/tl) - uadzhua(n/tl)
< aqua

Post by Daud Deden
Euxine

originally Greek Akseinos ~ Uaxyanos ~ okeanos

< Persian axSaina 'dark-coloured' [false etym?]
~ uaxyan.a oceana sea

***@Sanskrit: ocean ~ xyam(b)uatla ~ cyan puddle

/ocean
Greek ōkeanós a Titan, 'divine personification of the sea'
< PIE *dhghu- (Watkins)
< PAN *Sikan (Blust), probably derived from *-kan 'eat'
< PIE *akwā
< PMP *wahiR
Old Irish uisce < *ud-sko- (same root as "water")
< aqua

Post by Daud Deden
Euxine

originally Greek Akseinos < Persian axSaina 'dark-coloured'
/ocean
Greek ōkeanós a Titan, 'divine personification of the sea'
"Greek Ōkeanós has been compared to the Vedic epithet ā-śáyāna-,
predicated of the dragon Vṛtra-, who captured the cows/rivers.
Related to this notion, the Okeanos is represented with a dragon-tail
on some early Greek vases." (Wiki, Ocean)(footnote to a work by
Ranko Matasovic, whose Celtic etymological dictionary you were
citing not long ago)
/o-
< your imagination?
cyan
< Greek kuanos, originally the name of a mineral

Post by Daud Deden
(H)uiquae?

Is that a question?


~ wiki-***@Haw.: swift(flow/fly/swim) actually just 'swift, fast, quick, rapid'
If you want to get from -q(u)- to -k- here, you're going to
have to go via -t-. But I guess that won't be a problem for the Palaeo-bus.

Gods were after language, which began with drips & tit(an)s'
leaks

"Greek Ōkeanós has been compared to the Vedic epithet ā-śáyāna-, [ua.cyan.a]
predicated of the dragon Vṛtra-,

***@Malay: north(wind)?

who captured the cows/rivers.
Related to this notion, the Okeanos is represented with a dragon-tail

SeRPentine riparian d.r.ip/rib/draught? currents

on some early Greek vases." (Wiki, Ocean)(footnote to a work by
Ranko Matasovic, whose Celtic etymological dictionary you were
citing not long ago)
/o-
< your imagination?
cyan
< Greek kuanos, originally the name of a mineral

Which was named for what?

Post by Daud Deden
(H)uiquae?

Is that a question?

An early form of water-ice-scotch on the rocks..

~ wiki-***@Haw.: swift(flow/fly/swim) actually just 'swift, fast, quick, rapid'
If you want to get from -q(u)- to -k- here,
-
No reason to do that.
-
you're going to
have to go via -t-. But I guess that won't be a problem for the Palaeo-bus.
-
***@Malay = ***@Hawaiian

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
< PIE *dhghu- (Watkins)
(M)ichigan/(M)ichoacan?

:-)) A new version of Moses/Middlebury!

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
(F)isk/(P)escadoro?

Do you mean "Is the Norwegian word for fish cognate with the Spanish word
for fisherman?"? Why sure!
Or do you mean "If we just remove these pesky consonants, we get
a couple of nice vowel-initial words which, if you don't look too
hard, look a little like the Greek word for fish."?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
< PAN *Sikan (Blust), probably derived from *-kan 'eat'
-kan in Modern Malay: to do
< PIE *akwā
< PMP *wahiR
*uaxyua wash, shower, go-flow sieve/slough/sluice/chute
Old Irish uisce < *ud-sko- (same root as "water")
*uaxyua(n/tl) - uadzhua(n/tl)
< aqua

Post by Daud Deden
Euxine

originally Greek Akseinos ~ Uaxyanos ~ okeanos
< Persian axSaina 'dark-coloured' [false etym?]

What would make you think it was false?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
~ uaxyan.a oceana sea
/ocean
Greek ōkeanós a Titan, 'divine personification of the sea'
Gods were after language, which began with drips & tit(an)s'
leaks
"Greek Ōkeanós has been compared to the Vedic epithet ā-śáyāna-, [ua.cyan.a]
predicated of the dragon Vṛtra-,
who captured the cows/rivers.
Related to this notion, the Okeanos is represented with a dragon-tail
SeRPentine riparian d.r.ip/rib/draught? currents
on some early Greek vases." (Wiki, Ocean)(footnote to a work by
Ranko Matasovic, whose Celtic etymological dictionary you were
citing not long ago)
/o-
< your imagination?
cyan
< Greek kuanos, originally the name of a mineral
Which was named for what?

Not mother's milk, I'm pretty sure.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
(H)uiquae?

Is that a question?
An early form of water-ice-scotch on the rocks..
If you want to get from -q(u)- to -k- here,
-
No reason to do that.
-
you're going to
have to go via -t-. But I guess that won't be a problem for the Palaeo-bus.
-

No, those words are not "=" in any sense.

[Daud Deden]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
< PIE *dhghu- (Watkins)
(M)ichigan/(M)ichoacan?

:-)) A new version of Moses/Middlebury!

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
(F)isk/(P)escadoro?

Do you mean "Is the Norwegian word for fish cognate with the Spanish word
for fisherman?"? Why sure!
Or do you mean "If we just remove these pesky consonants, we get
a couple of nice vowel-initial words which, if you don't look too
hard, look a little like the Greek word for fish."?

Initial consonants all derived from mb- mother's (water/wash/wet) milk/wamba=womb.u/a.dder= madre/motla/mbo etc. P/F/M/B due due to arid climate. Your prejudices block your listening-learning, standard response by monolingual Neo-etymologists.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
< PAN *Sikan (Blust), probably derived from *-kan 'eat'
-kan in Modern Malay: to do
< PIE *akwā
< PMP *wahiR
*uaxyua wash, shower, go-flow sieve/slough/sluice/chute
Old Irish uisce < *ud-sko- (same root as "water")

-sko sounds scand./slav influenced.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
*uaxyua(n/tl) - uadzhua(n/tl)
< aqua

Post by Daud Deden
Euxine

originally Greek Akseinos ~ Uaxyanos ~ okeanos
< Persian axSaina 'dark-coloured' [false etym?]

What would make you think it was false?

Probably an overformation.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
~ uaxyan.a oceana sea
/ocean
Greek ōkeanós a Titan, 'divine personification of the sea'
Gods were after language, which began with drips & tit(an)s'
leaks
"Greek Ōkeanós has been compared to the Vedic epithet ā-śáyāna-, [ua.cyan.a]
predicated of the dragon Vṛtra-,
who captured the cows/rivers.
Related to this notion, the Okeanos is represented with a dragon-tail
SeRPentine riparian d.r.ip/rib/draught? currents
on some early Greek vases." (Wiki, Ocean)(footnote to a work by
Ranko Matasovic, whose Celtic etymological dictionary you were
citing not long ago)
/o-
< your imagination?

O = ua = eau = eu/ue

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
cyan
< Greek kuanos, originally the name of a mineral
Which was named for what?

Not mother's milk, I'm pretty sure.

Poor guess. Always start at the beginning, more efficient & parsimonious, in Paleo-etymology.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
(H)uiquae?

Is that a question?
An early form of water-ice-scotch on the rocks..
If you want to get from -q(u)- to -k- here,
-
No reason to do that.
-
you're going to
have to go via -t-. But I guess that won't be a problem for the Palaeo-bus.
-

No, those words are not "=" in any sense.

Apply parsimony, continuity & common sense please. Kanak.a = people, ***@Malay: child.(related to AmerInd: child, cf M. Ruhlen's work).

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
< PIE *dhghu- (Watkins)
(M)ichigan/(M)ichoacan?

:-)) A new version of Moses/Middlebury!

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
(F)isk/(P)escadoro?

Do you mean "Is the Norwegian word for fish cognate with the Spanish word
for fisherman?"? Why sure!
Or do you mean "If we just remove these pesky consonants, we get
a couple of nice vowel-initial words which, if you don't look too
hard, look a little like the Greek word for fish."?

Initial consonants all derived from mb- mother's (water/wash/wet) milk/wamba=womb.u/a.dder= madre/motla/mbo etc. P/F/M/B due due to arid climate. Your prejudices block your listening-learning, standard response by monolingual Neo-etymologists.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
< PAN *Sikan (Blust), probably derived from *-kan 'eat'
-kan in Modern Malay: to do
< PIE *akwā
< PMP *wahiR
*uaxyua wash, shower, go-flow sieve/slough/sluice/chute
Old Irish uisce < *ud-sko- (same root as "water")

-sko sounds scand./slav influenced.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
*uaxyua(n/tl) - uadzhua(n/tl)
< aqua

Post by Daud Deden
Euxine

originally Greek Akseinos ~ Uaxyanos ~ okeanos
< Persian axSaina 'dark-coloured' [false etym?]

What would make you think it was false?

Probably an overformation.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
~ uaxyan.a oceana sea
/ocean
Greek ōkeanós a Titan, 'divine personification of the sea'
Gods were after language, which began with drips & tit(an)s'
leaks
"Greek Ōkeanós has been compared to the Vedic epithet ā-śáyāna-, [ua.cyan.a]
predicated of the dragon Vṛtra-,
who captured the cows/rivers.
Related to this notion, the Okeanos is represented with a dragon-tail
SeRPentine riparian d.r.ip/rib/draught? currents
on some early Greek vases." (Wiki, Ocean)(footnote to a work by
Ranko Matasovic, whose Celtic etymological dictionary you were
citing not long ago)
/o-
< your imagination?

O = ua = eau = eu/ue

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
cyan
< Greek kuanos, originally the name of a mineral
Which was named for what?

Not mother's milk, I'm pretty sure.

Poor guess. Always start at the beginning, more efficient & parsimonious, in Paleo-etymology.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
(H)uiquae?

Is that a question?
An early form of water-ice-scotch on the rocks..
If you want to get from -q(u)- to -k- here,
-
No reason to do that.
-
you're going to
have to go via -t-. But I guess that won't be a problem for the Palaeo-bus.
-

No, those words are not "=" in any sense.

Apply parsimony, continuity & common sense please.

Done already. Plus some knowledge of the language family in question.

Kanak.a = people, ***@Malay: child.

Form: different. I'll give you 5/6, but not "=".
Meaning: different.
Origin: different. PAN *aNak 'child'
PMP *tau-mata > PPN *tangata > Hawaiian kanaka 'person'
So not "=" in any sense.

(related to AmerInd: child, cf M. Ruhlen's work).

He has no fewer than eight different proto-forms for "child".
No doubt to you they would all be "=".

[Daud Deden]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
He seems to be tring to imitate Merritt Ruhlen.
--
athel

I would not know how to imitate Merrit Ruhlen. Does he use word strings
to collate, compare and convey etymological information?

(Repeat for clarification)

[DKleinecke]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
He seems to be tring to imitate Merritt Ruhlen.
--
athel

I would not know how to imitate Merrit Ruhlen. Does he use word strings
to collate, compare and convey etymological information?
(Repeat for clarification)

You've never said it outright - do you claim that all the words
in one of your word strings are current versions (evolved since
paleolithic times) of a single utterance in paleo-human speech?

[Daud Deden]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
He seems to be tring to imitate Merritt Ruhlen.
--
athel

I would not know how to imitate Merrit Ruhlen. Does he use word strings
to collate, compare and convey etymological information?
(Repeat for clarification)

You've never said it outright - do you claim that all the words
in one of your word strings are current versions (evolved since
paleolithic times) of a single utterance in paleo-human speech?

My word strings are not gold-plated factual literal anything.

They are my attempts to determine ancient patterns via human vocalizations and related semantic roots, which I consider very fluid due to new findings and better understanding through time. They appear disorderly, since they cross borders of language, climate, geography, sociopolitic ideals, etc.

[Daud Deden]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
He seems to be tring to imitate Merritt Ruhlen.
--
athel

I would not know how to imitate Merrit Ruhlen. Does he use word strings
to collate, compare and convey etymological information?
(Repeat for clarification)

You've never said it outright - do you claim that all the words
in one of your word strings are current versions (evolved since
paleolithic times) of a single utterance in paleo-human speech?

DK, ideally yes, current and recent (eg. ancient Egyptian). In reality, currently, they are attempts to show how basal words have evolved and been maintained in languages separated temporally & spatially etc. and this can be recognized by showing them together, indicating a plausible 'paleo-reconstruction'.

[Daud Deden]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I do plenty of thinking, thanks. If the dictionary gave me inadequate
information, or information I had some reason to doubt, "going beyond"
would be looking at other sources, or trying to get in touch with a native speaker. Apparently for you it's just "thinking".
You inherently redefine what I say, unfortunately. You don't publish dictionaries, do you?
So exactly how would "thinking" lead one to conclude that the dictionary was wrong?
I don't know where you came up with that one.

I'm trying to make sense of your exhortation: "Go beyond dictionaries,
Ross. Think." You could help by explaining just what sort of "thinking"
you had in mind. But I'm not optimistic; your record of eplaining things
here is pretty poor.

Thanks Ross, your best compliment yet.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
- show quoted text -
Yes, I can see that since you believe all languages are full of relics
A word I've never used at Sci.lang.
from proto-human or whatever you call it,
I guess you mean 'human language'.

No, I mean "prehistoric language" as you described it recently.

99.99% of human language is prehistoric. Paleo-etymology is the study of human language with primary focus on pre-scripture (before writing).

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?

Your words "exact form". Paleo-etymology recognizes evolutionary patterns and does not consider "exact form" to be significantly different from "almost exact forms", the pattern is the criteria to measure, not the temporary & local manifestation of a word.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't.

Yup, we do.

you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false,

You claim.

you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true.

Aha! I actually DID say that one. Finally.

"Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't work either.

True, which is why I said I'm a Biologist.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.

I seem to have taught you its importance, without unnecessary explanation.

Don't worry, you'll always have your Neo-etymology fanboys to cheer you along while you bang your head against the hard walls of Paleo-etymological realty, they'll cushion the blows.


DD ~ David ~ Da'ud ~ Diode ~ ∆^¥°∆

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I do plenty of thinking, thanks. If the dictionary gave me inadequate
information, or information I had some reason to doubt, "going beyond"
would be looking at other sources, or trying to get in touch with a native speaker. Apparently for you it's just "thinking".
You inherently redefine what I say, unfortunately. You don't publish dictionaries, do you?
So exactly how would "thinking" lead one to conclude that the dictionary was wrong?
I don't know where you came up with that one.

I'm trying to make sense of your exhortation: "Go beyond dictionaries,
Ross. Think." You could help by explaining just what sort of "thinking"
you had in mind. But I'm not optimistic; your record of eplaining things
here is pretty poor.
Thanks Ross, your best compliment yet.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
- show quoted text -
Yes, I can see that since you believe all languages are full of relics
A word I've never used at Sci.lang.
from proto-human or whatever you call it,
I guess you mean 'human language'.

No, I mean "prehistoric language" as you described it recently.
99.99% of human language is prehistoric. Paleo-etymology is the study of human language with primary focus on pre-scripture (before writing).

I do that when I study Proto-Polynesian.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?
Your words "exact form". Paleo-etymology recognizes evolutionary patterns and does not consider "exact form" to be significantly different from "almost exact forms", the pattern is the criteria to measure, not the temporary & local manifestation of a word.

That's more or less a highfalutin' restatement of what I said about
"doesn't matter".
"Exact forms" exist even if they are temporary and local. Using the term
has nothing to do with "trying to make language obey artificial rules".

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't.
Yup, we do.

You may "define logic" as part of your language-hobby, but actual logic
is not affected by this activity.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false,
You claim.

I tell you. And I know better than you.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true.
Aha! I actually DID say that one. Finally.
"Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't work either.
True, which is why I said I'm a Biologist.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.
I seem to have taught you its importance, without unnecessary explanation.

No teaching or learning noticeable here. Apparently by "scripture"
you just mean "writing".

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Don't worry, you'll always have your Neo-etymology fanboys to cheer you along while you bang your head against the hard walls of Paleo-etymological realty, they'll cushion the blows.

You're peddling Paleo-etymological realty now? In a Florida swamp?

[Daud Deden]

I do that when I study Proto-Polynesian.

Good.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?
Your words "exact form". Paleo-etymology recognizes evolutionary patterns and does not consider "exact form" to be significantly different from "almost exact forms", the pattern is the criteria to measure, not the temporary & local manifestation of a word.

That's more or less a highfalutin' restatement of what I said about
"doesn't matter".
-
Nope, you omitted the important part, the pattern.
-
"Exact forms" exist even if they are temporary and local. Using the term
has nothing to do with "trying to make language obey artificial rules".

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't.
Yup, we do.

You may "define logic" as part of your language-hobby, but actual logic
is not affected by this activity.
-
We define actual too, actually ~ua+xyua+tlaya.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false,
You claim.

I tell you. And I know better than you.

Another claim.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true.
Aha! I actually DID say that one. Finally.
"Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't work either.
True, which is why I said I'm a Biologist.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.
I seem to have taught you its importance, without unnecessary explanation.

No teaching or learning noticeable here.

You can't see it? Good. Your listening has improved.

Apparently by "scripture"
you just mean "writing".

And reading.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Don't worry, you'll always have your Neo-etymology fanboys to cheer you along while you bang your head against the hard walls of Paleo-etymological realty, they'll cushion the blows.

You're peddling Paleo-etymological realty now? In a Florida swamp

No, I'm learning about Paleo-etymology at a sandy beach under coconut palms, mostly. Now the King Tide is over, things can settle down again. I pedal & paddle, but not peddle. You ever hear the term fuddle?

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I do that when I study Proto-Polynesian.
Good.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?
Your words "exact form". Paleo-etymology recognizes evolutionary patterns and does not consider "exact form" to be significantly different from "almost exact forms", the pattern is the criteria to measure, not the temporary & local manifestation of a word.

That's more or less a highfalutin' restatement of what I said about
"doesn't matter".
-
Nope, you omitted the important part, the pattern.

Clearly it's important to you. Am I right in thinking that what I have
called daisy-chains (for want of a better name) are the "patterns" you
talk about? If not, when will we see an example of one?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"Exact forms" exist even if they are temporary and local. Using the term
has nothing to do with "trying to make language obey artificial rules".

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't.
Yup, we do.

You may "define logic" as part of your language-hobby, but actual logic
is not affected by this activity.
-
We define actual too, actually ~ua+xyua+tlaya.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false,
You claim.

I tell you. And I know better than you.
Another claim.

What else is there? This is the same bullshit rhetoric you were
using the other day about "certainty".

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true.
Aha! I actually DID say that one. Finally.
"Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't work either.
True, which is why I said I'm a Biologist.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.
I seem to have taught you its importance, without unnecessary explanation.

No teaching or learning noticeable here.
You can't see it? Good. Your listening has improved.
Apparently by "scripture"
you just mean "writing".
And reading.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Don't worry, you'll always have your Neo-etymology fanboys to cheer you along while you bang your head against the hard walls of Paleo-etymological realty, they'll cushion the blows.

You're peddling Paleo-etymological realty now? In a Florida swamp
No, I'm learning about Paleo-etymology at a sandy beach under coconut palms, mostly. Now the King Tide is over, things can settle down again. I pedal & paddle, but not peddle. You ever hear the term fuddle?

[Daud Deden]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I do that when I study Proto-Polynesian.
Good.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?
Your words "exact form". Paleo-etymology recognizes evolutionary patterns and does not consider "exact form" to be significantly different from "almost exact forms", the pattern is the criteria to measure, not the temporary & local manifestation of a word.

That's more or less a highfalutin' restatement of what I said about
"doesn't matter".
-
Nope, you omitted the important part, the pattern.

Clearly it's important to you.

Of course it is important, I've been stressing its importance from the beginning.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Am I right in thinking that what I have
called daisy-chains (for want of a better name) are the "patterns" you
talk about?

Word Strings show patterns. Dead flowers show funerals. Pick yours as you like.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
If not, when will we see an example of one?

I've shown the milk(y) pattern.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"Exact forms" exist even if they are temporary and local. Using the term
has nothing to do with "trying to make language obey artificial rules".

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't.
Yup, we do.

You may "define logic" as part of your language-hobby, but actual logic
is not affected by this activity.
-
We define actual too, actually ~ua+xyua+tlaya.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false,
You claim.

I tell you. And I know better than you.
Another claim.

What else is there? This is the same bullshit rhetoric you were
using the other day about "certainty".

Ross, I keep hoping you will actually have an interest in prehistoric language, but you keep focusing on stuff that is secondary or much less important.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true.
Aha! I actually DID say that one. Finally.
"Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't work either.
True, which is why I said I'm a Biologist.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.
I seem to have taught you its importance, without unnecessary explanation.

No teaching or learning noticeable here.
You can't see it? Good. Your listening has improved.
Apparently by "scripture"
you just mean "writing".
And reading.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Don't worry, you'll always have your Neo-etymology fanboys to cheer you along while you bang your head against the hard walls of Paleo-etymological realty, they'll cushion the blows.

You're peddling Paleo-etymological realty now? In a Florida swamp
No, I'm learning about Paleo-etymology at a sandy beach under coconut palms, mostly. Now the King Tide is over, things can settle down again. I pedal & paddle, but not peddle. You ever hear the term fuddle?

Fuddle, Ross. Think.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I do that when I study Proto-Polynesian.
Good.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?
Your words "exact form". Paleo-etymology recognizes evolutionary patterns and does not consider "exact form" to be significantly different from "almost exact forms", the pattern is the criteria to measure, not the temporary & local manifestation of a word.

That's more or less a highfalutin' restatement of what I said about
"doesn't matter".
-
Nope, you omitted the important part, the pattern.

Clearly it's important to you.

Of course it is important, I've been stressing its importance from the beginning.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Am I right in thinking that what I have
called daisy-chains (for want of a better name) are the "patterns" you
talk about?

Word Strings show patterns. Dead flowers show funerals. Pick yours as you like.

OK, so is the following (quoted from above) a word string, or part of
a word string, or several word strings?

qabiich, ***@Yap: eat, consume
***@Truk: feast
***@Chamorro, Mariana: feast

gu.pot ~ qa.biich ~ ka.metip ~ all rooted via xya.mbuat ~ feast ~ ce.remony-ce.lebrate

And if there's a word string in there, what is the pattern that it shows?
Would it be something like "Velar consonant followed by labial followed by
dental has to do with feasting"?

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
If not, when will we see an example of one?

I've shown the milk(y) pattern.

Perhaps you have. Is there any way the "milk(y) pattern" can be stated
or described other than by throwing out more word strings?

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"Exact forms" exist even if they are temporary and local. Using the term
has nothing to do with "trying to make language obey artificial rules".

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't.
Yup, we do.

You may "define logic" as part of your language-hobby, but actual logic
is not affected by this activity.
-
We define actual too, actually ~ua+xyua+tlaya.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false,
You claim.

I tell you. And I know better than you.
Another claim.

What else is there? This is the same bullshit rhetoric you were
using the other day about "certainty".

Ross, I keep hoping you will actually have an interest in prehistoric language, but you keep focusing on stuff that is secondary or much less important.

I've told you that I actually work on prehistoric language,
The stuff you say about it may be important to you, but so far you've
failed to give us any reason to believe it.

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true.
Aha! I actually DID say that one. Finally.
"Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't work either.
True, which is why I said I'm a Biologist.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.
I seem to have taught you its importance, without unnecessary explanation.

No teaching or learning noticeable here.
You can't see it? Good. Your listening has improved.
Apparently by "scripture"
you just mean "writing".
And reading.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Don't worry, you'll always have your Neo-etymology fanboys to cheer you along while you bang your head against the hard walls of Paleo-etymological realty, they'll cushion the blows.

You're peddling Paleo-etymological realty now? In a Florida swamp
No, I'm learning about Paleo-etymology at a sandy beach under coconut palms, mostly. Now the King Tide is over, things can settle down again. I pedal & paddle, but not peddle. You ever hear the term fuddle?

Fuddle, Ross. Think.

Look, cut the 'Think' crap. If you've got something interesting to tell us
about 'fuddle', just do it.

[Daud Deden]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I do that when I study Proto-Polynesian.
Good.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?
Your words "exact form". Paleo-etymology recognizes evolutionary patterns and does not consider "exact form" to be significantly different from "almost exact forms", the pattern is the criteria to measure, not the temporary & local manifestation of a word.

That's more or less a highfalutin' restatement of what I said about
"doesn't matter".
-
Nope, you omitted the important part, the pattern.

Clearly it's important to you.

Of course it is important, I've been stressing its importance from the beginning.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Am I right in thinking that what I have
called daisy-chains (for want of a better name) are the "patterns" you
talk about?

Word Strings show patterns. Dead flowers show funerals. Pick yours as you like.

OK, so is the following (quoted from above) a word string, or part of
a word string, or several word strings?
gu.pot ~ qa.biich ~ ka.metip ~ all rooted via xya.mbuat ~ feast ~ ce.remony-ce.lebrate
And if there's a word string in there, what is the pattern that it shows?
Would it be something like "Velar consonant followed by labial followed by
dental has to do with feasting"?

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
If not, when will we see an example of one?

I've shown the milk(y) pattern.

Perhaps you have. Is there any way the "milk(y) pattern" can be stated
or described other than by throwing out more word strings?

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"Exact forms" exist even if they are temporary and local. Using the term
has nothing to do with "trying to make language obey artificial rules".

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't.
Yup, we do.

You may "define logic" as part of your language-hobby, but actual logic
is not affected by this activity.
-
We define actual too, actually ~ua+xyua+tlaya.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false,
You claim.

I tell you. And I know better than you.
Another claim.

What else is there? This is the same bullshit rhetoric you were
using the other day about "certainty".

Ross, I keep hoping you will actually have an interest in prehistoric language, but you keep focusing on stuff that is secondary or much less important.

I've told you that I actually work on prehistoric language,
The stuff you say about it may be important to you, but so far you've
failed to give us any reason to believe it.

I don't seek believers, I seek people interested in Paleo-etymology, to discuss it.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true.
Aha! I actually DID say that one. Finally.
"Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't work either.
True, which is why I said I'm a Biologist.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.
I seem to have taught you its importance, without unnecessary explanation.

No teaching or learning noticeable here.
You can't see it? Good. Your listening has improved.
Apparently by "scripture"
you just mean "writing".
And reading.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Don't worry, you'll always have your Neo-etymology fanboys to cheer you along while you bang your head against the hard walls of Paleo-etymological realty, they'll cushion the blows.

You're peddling Paleo-etymological realty now? In a Florida swamp
No, I'm learning about Paleo-etymology at a sandy beach under coconut palms, mostly. Now the King Tide is over, things can settle down again. I pedal & paddle, but not peddle. You ever hear the term fuddle?

Fuddle, Ross. Think.

Look, cut the 'Think' crap. If you've got something interesting to tell us
about 'fuddle', just do it.

It follows the usual festive affair pattern.

fiesta/fusta/food/fuddle/potluck/potlatch/gou.pot.lash/gumbo/jambalaya/yammer-jabber etc. jaw/xyua/sieve/shavings/chop/chomp... JAMBO!

I never heard of fuddle before, but it fits. It is used in Britain dialect.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I do that when I study Proto-Polynesian.
Good.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
it doesn't really matter what
language the daisies
Miami is full of dead flora, so are you apparently.
in your chains come from, or even whether they come
from any language at all. And given the extreme latitude of your criteria
for "linking" and "connecting", the exact form of the word doesn't matter
either.
Still trying to make language obey artificial rules, I see.

Not in the slightest. What would make you "see" that?
Your words "exact form". Paleo-etymology recognizes evolutionary patterns and does not consider "exact form" to be significantly different from "almost exact forms", the pattern is the criteria to measure, not the temporary & local manifestation of a word.

That's more or less a highfalutin' restatement of what I said about
"doesn't matter".
-
Nope, you omitted the important part, the pattern.

Clearly it's important to you.

Of course it is important, I've been stressing its importance from the beginning.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Am I right in thinking that what I have
called daisy-chains (for want of a better name) are the "patterns" you
talk about?

Word Strings show patterns. Dead flowers show funerals. Pick yours as you like.

OK, so is the following (quoted from above) a word string, or part of
a word string, or several word strings?
gu.pot ~ qa.biich ~ ka.metip ~ all rooted via xya.mbuat ~ feast ~ ce.remony-ce.lebrate
And if there's a word string in there, what is the pattern that it shows?
Would it be something like "Velar consonant followed by labial followed by
dental has to do with feasting"?

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
If not, when will we see an example of one?

I've shown the milk(y) pattern.

Perhaps you have. Is there any way the "milk(y) pattern" can be stated
or described other than by throwing out more word strings?

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"Exact forms" exist even if they are temporary and local. Using the term
has nothing to do with "trying to make language obey artificial rules".

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But as you

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
admit, you don't care.
Mine are just patterns that stem from the human linguistic taproot, completely ignored by modern etymology & linguistics in favor of invisible inaudible language organs, sacred scriptures, rules of universal grammer & recursion.
Well, we're used to this sort of abuse of linguistics here, usually inversely
proportional to the writer's degree of acquaintance with the subject.

Self-abuse perhaps?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
But it seems a waste of time to explain such things to Neo-etymologists like
yourself, since it isn't scripture, its just human nature.

Where is this "scripture" stuff coming from? Is it the old crank refrain,
"These people are blinded by dogma, cannot see the truth of my theory"?
Sorry, Ross, you are a scripturalist, the written word is your alpha & omega.

This part is untrue.

The whole is true.

I'm sorry, even paleo-etymologists have to follow logic.
No, we define logic, based on ancestral patterns starting from the tap root of human language, mothers' milk.

No, actually, you don't.
Yup, we do.

You may "define logic" as part of your language-hobby, but actual logic
is not affected by this activity.
-
We define actual too, actually ~ua+xyua+tlaya.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you make several assertions about me,
one of which is false,
You claim.

I tell you. And I know better than you.
Another claim.

What else is there? This is the same bullshit rhetoric you were
using the other day about "certainty".

Ross, I keep hoping you will actually have an interest in prehistoric language, but you keep focusing on stuff that is secondary or much less important.

I've told you that I actually work on prehistoric language,
The stuff you say about it may be important to you, but so far you've
failed to give us any reason to believe it.

I don't seek believers, I seek people interested in Paleo-etymology, to discuss it.

Well, you've found several people here who are interested enough in it
to respond to your posts, and to ask you to explain your ideas and methods.
Any higher level of "discussion" would entail belief -- belief that your
ideas and methods are really telling us something about Paleo-language.

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
you don't get to excuse yourself by saying
"the whole" is true.
Aha! I actually DID say that one. Finally.
"Trust me, I'm a paleo-etymologist" doesn't work either.
True, which is why I said I'm a Biologist.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Are you monolingual?

No. Why do you ask?
Curious.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
You are not blind, but perhaps intellectually deafened to your own prehistoric (pre-school) voice crying for mothers' milk, a feast fit for a newborn king.
Are you peddling some sort of primal therapy?

No Ross, I'm just interested in Paleo-etymology.

which is taking on something of a Freudian tone.
I guess Freudian is apt to a Neo-etymologist who avoids going back further than scripture.

Again with the "scripture". You just don't listen.
I seem to have taught you its importance, without unnecessary explanation.

No teaching or learning noticeable here.
You can't see it? Good. Your listening has improved.
Apparently by "scripture"
you just mean "writing".
And reading.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Don't worry, you'll always have your Neo-etymology fanboys to cheer you along while you bang your head against the hard walls of Paleo-etymological realty, they'll cushion the blows.

You're peddling Paleo-etymological realty now? In a Florida swamp
No, I'm learning about Paleo-etymology at a sandy beach under coconut palms, mostly. Now the King Tide is over, things can settle down again. I pedal & paddle, but not peddle. You ever hear the term fuddle?

Fuddle, Ross. Think.

Look, cut the 'Think' crap. If you've got something interesting to tell us
about 'fuddle', just do it.

It follows the usual festive affair pattern.
fiesta/fusta/food/fuddle/potluck/potlatch/gou.pot.lash/gumbo/jambalaya/yammer-jabber etc. jaw/xyua/sieve/shavings/chop/chomp... JAMBO!
I never heard of fuddle before, but it fits. It is used in Britain dialect.

Of course.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Daud Deden
DD ~ David ~ Da'ud ~ Diode ~ ∆^¥°∆

You call yourself a scientist, you call me a story teller, I told you the
etymology of diode, but apparently you consider this a mere story. Here
again. A diode is an electronic device, in the beginning a tube, then
a semiconductor allowing the current to flow from A to B, but not from
B to A. The name diode is an articial compound, di- 'two' and -ode from
electrode. What has a diode to do with David? ***@mangos.com

[Daud Deden]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Daud Deden
DD ~ David ~ Da'ud ~ Diode ~ ∆^¥°∆

You call yourself a scientist, you call me a story teller, I told you the
etymology of diode, but apparently you consider this a mere story. Here
again. A diode is an electronic device, in the beginning a tube, then
a semiconductor allowing the current to flow from A to B, but not from
B to A. The name diode is an articial compound, di- 'two' and -ode from

Franz, I call you a storyteller because you tell stories. You might be a scientist or an astronaut, I don't know, I was not speaking exclusively.

I don't consider you to be a Paleo-etymologist because you don't go further back than about 50ka (which is simply too late to find the root of language), although maybe you consider yourself to be an Upper Paleo-etymologist.

hod-os way/route

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Daud Deden
Franz, I call you a storyteller because you tell stories. You might be a scientist or an astronaut, I don't know, I was not speaking exclusively.
I don't consider you to be a Paleo-etymologist because you don't go further back than about 50ka (which is simply too late to find the root of language), although maybe you consider yourself to be an Upper Paleo-etymologist.

Still no explanation of what in the ***@nightingale David has in common
with a diode.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Daud Deden
vacca/bos ~ mbuaxe/mboxe ~ mother ox

I reconstructed a group of similar words, PIC for bird, still present in beak
and in the verb pick, PEC for smaller cattle, mostly sheep and goats and swine,
but also cows, a word present in Latin pecora 'cattle' and in pecunia 'money'
from a silver ingot worth a house or a cow and decorated with a cow, then PAC
for horse, present in Avestan aspa Sanskrit asva both 'horse', from AS PAC,
upward AS horse PAC, originally small pony-like horses used for transporting
loads up a hill or a mountain slope in Central Asia, then also in PAC AS AS
Pegasos Pegasus, the winged horse of poetry, initially personifying the hot
summer wind Afghanetz that blows from the Aral Sea along the Amu Darya upward
to the Hindukush, horse PAC upward AS upward AS, the banks of the Amu Darya
having been the first Indo-European homeland where the oldest layer of Greek
mythology came from, therefore the winged horse of poetry. Derivatives of PEC
and PAC were mixed to some extent. PEC is present in ibex, PEC and PAC are
combined in Italian vacca 'cow' Greek bos 'cattle' English bovine. What is
the language of mbuaxe / mboxe? In a linguistic forum you should care about
a clear notation, and look up the meaning of a word before you go public with
a new etymology. As for equine, this word is the adjective to Latin equus
'horse', from AC PAS *H1eqwos hippos equus Epona havonen, expanse of earth
with water AC everywhere (in a plain) PAS - riding this animal you can get
everywhere in the Uralic steppes (second IE homeland) and the Pontic steppes
(third IE homeland). Epona was the Gallo-Roman horse goddess and an alias
of Rhea, mother of Zeus and Poseidon and Hades. Rhea named the River Rha
today Volga between the Uralic and Pontic steppes, in my opinion the 2nd
and 3rd Indo-European homeland respectively.

You see, etymology requires a lot of knowledge, and even more so when you
go beyond the current etymologies. To make it short: can you tell me what
language is mbuaxa / mboxe ?

[Daud Deden]

Franz, human language. Modern & recent languages are defined largely by sedentary geopolitical boundaries via agriculture & "permanent" construction development, which is not found pre-neolithic but sparsely.

Beak, peck, mac.eratee ~ (mast.itis) all from milking, mbuatl/mboxe/ibogi etc.

[Daud Deden]

Franz, errata: macerate, masticate, mash-> mush into meal/milled/milk-like food.~ powd.er

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
I reconstructed a group of similar words, PIC for bird, still present in beak
and in the verb pick, PEC for smaller cattle, mostly sheep and goats and swine,
but also cows, a word present in Latin pecora 'cattle' and in pecunia 'money'
from a silver ingot worth a house or a cow and decorated with a cow, then PAC
for horse, present in Avestan aspa Sanskrit asva both 'horse', from AS PAC,
upward AS horse PAC, originally small pony-like horses used for transporting
loads up a hill or a mountain slope in Central Asia, then also in PAC AS AS
Pegasos Pegasus, the winged horse of poetry, initially personifying the hot
summer wind Afghanetz that blows from the Aral Sea along the Amu Darya upward
to the Hindukush, horse PAC upward AS upward AS, the banks of the Amu Darya
having been the first Indo-European homeland where the oldest layer of Greek
mythology came from, therefore the winged horse of poetry. Derivatives of PEC
and PAC were mixed to some extent. PEC is present in ibex, PEC and PAC are
combined in Italian vacca 'cow' Greek bos 'cattle' English bovine. What is
the language of mbuaxe / mboxe? In a linguistic forum you should care about
a clear notation, and look up the meaning of a word before you go public with
a new etymology. As for equine, this word is the adjective to Latin equus
'horse', from AC PAS *H1eqwos hippos equus Epona havonen, expanse of earth
with water AC everywhere (in a plain) PAS - riding this animal you can get
everywhere in the Uralic steppes (second IE homeland) and the Pontic steppes
(third IE homeland). Epona was the Gallo-Roman horse goddess and an alias
of Rhea, mother of Zeus and Poseidon and Hades. Rhea named the River Rha
today Volga between the Uralic and Pontic steppes, in my opinion the 2nd
and 3rd Indo-European homeland respectively.
You see, etymology requires a lot of knowledge, and even more so when you
go beyond the current etymologies. To make it short: can you tell me what
language is mbuaxa / mboxe ?

Daud, in a global scientific forum on language you should make yourself
understandable. Your replies to me are not. Nor did I get what I asked for:
to what language(s) belong mbuaxa / mboxe, and what do those words mean?

A new thought. PIC and PEC and PAC, as explained yesterday, may be inverses
of the very ancient *KAPA that lives on in English capture, and would have
named prey in the Stone Age, birds PIC, especially fowl, horses PAC, and
animals in between the sizes of birds and horses, PEC.

[Daud Deden]

***@human language

[Daud Deden]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
I reconstructed a group of similar words, PIC for bird, still present in beak
and in the verb pick, PEC for smaller cattle, mostly sheep and goats and swine,
but also cows, a word present in Latin pecora 'cattle' and in pecunia 'money'
from a silver ingot worth a house or a cow and decorated with a cow, then PAC
for horse, present in Avestan aspa Sanskrit asva both 'horse', from AS PAC,
upward AS horse PAC, originally small pony-like horses used for transporting
loads up a hill or a mountain slope in Central Asia, then also in PAC AS AS
Pegasos Pegasus, the winged horse of poetry, initially personifying the hot
summer wind Afghanetz that blows from the Aral Sea along the Amu Darya upward
to the Hindukush, horse PAC upward AS upward AS, the banks of the Amu Darya
having been the first Indo-European homeland where the oldest layer of Greek
mythology came from, therefore the winged horse of poetry. Derivatives of PEC
and PAC were mixed to some extent. PEC is present in ibex, PEC and PAC are
combined in Italian vacca 'cow' Greek bos 'cattle' English bovine. What is
the language of mbuaxe / mboxe? In a linguistic forum you should care about
a clear notation, and look up the meaning of a word before you go public with
a new etymology. As for equine, this word is the adjective to Latin equus
'horse', from AC PAS *H1eqwos hippos equus Epona havonen, expanse of earth
with water AC everywhere (in a plain) PAS - riding this animal you can get
everywhere in the Uralic steppes (second IE homeland) and the Pontic steppes
(third IE homeland). Epona was the Gallo-Roman horse goddess and an alias
of Rhea, mother of Zeus and Poseidon and Hades. Rhea named the River Rha
today Volga between the Uralic and Pontic steppes, in my opinion the 2nd
and 3rd Indo-European homeland respectively.
You see, etymology requires a lot of knowledge, and even more so when you
go beyond the current etymologies. To make it short: can you tell me what
language is mbuaxa / mboxe ?

Daud, in a global scientific forum on language you should make yourself
to what language(s) belong mbuaxa / mboxe, and what do those words mean?
A new thought. PIC and PEC and PAC, as explained yesterday, may be inverses
of the very ancient *KAPA that lives on in English capture, and would have
named prey in the Stone Age, birds PIC, especially fowl, horses PAC, and
animals in between the sizes of birds and horses, PEC.

Franz, I don't know why you can't understand my comments, perhaps you simply disagree.

Beak, peck, mac.erate/mast.icate ~ (mast.itis) all from milking, mbuatl/mboxe/ibogi etc.

Does it really matter which language label is applied to a 'word' which preceded all language?

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
I reconstructed a group of similar words, PIC for bird, still present in beak
and in the verb pick, PEC for smaller cattle, mostly sheep and goats and swine,
but also cows, a word present in Latin pecora 'cattle' and in pecunia 'money'
from a silver ingot worth a house or a cow and decorated with a cow, then PAC
for horse, present in Avestan aspa Sanskrit asva both 'horse', from AS PAC,
upward AS horse PAC, originally small pony-like horses used for transporting
loads up a hill or a mountain slope in Central Asia, then also in PAC AS AS
Pegasos Pegasus, the winged horse of poetry, initially personifying the hot
summer wind Afghanetz that blows from the Aral Sea along the Amu Darya upward
to the Hindukush, horse PAC upward AS upward AS, the banks of the Amu Darya
having been the first Indo-European homeland where the oldest layer of Greek
mythology came from, therefore the winged horse of poetry. Derivatives of PEC
and PAC were mixed to some extent. PEC is present in ibex, PEC and PAC are
combined in Italian vacca 'cow' Greek bos 'cattle' English bovine. What is
the language of mbuaxe / mboxe? In a linguistic forum you should care about
a clear notation, and look up the meaning of a word before you go public with
a new etymology. As for equine, this word is the adjective to Latin equus
'horse', from AC PAS *H1eqwos hippos equus Epona havonen, expanse of earth
with water AC everywhere (in a plain) PAS - riding this animal you can get
everywhere in the Uralic steppes (second IE homeland) and the Pontic steppes
(third IE homeland). Epona was the Gallo-Roman horse goddess and an alias
of Rhea, mother of Zeus and Poseidon and Hades. Rhea named the River Rha
today Volga between the Uralic and Pontic steppes, in my opinion the 2nd
and 3rd Indo-European homeland respectively.
You see, etymology requires a lot of knowledge, and even more so when you
go beyond the current etymologies. To make it short: can you tell me what
language is mbuaxa / mboxe ?

Daud, in a global scientific forum on language you should make yourself
to what language(s) belong mbuaxa / mboxe, and what do those words mean?
A new thought. PIC and PEC and PAC, as explained yesterday, may be inverses
of the very ancient *KAPA that lives on in English capture, and would have
named prey in the Stone Age, birds PIC, especially fowl, horses PAC, and
animals in between the sizes of birds and horses, PEC.

Franz, I don't know why you can't understand my comments, perhaps you simply disagree.
Beak, peck, mac.erate/mast.icate ~ (mast.itis) all from milking, mbuatl/mboxe/ibogi etc.
Does it really matter which language label is applied to a 'word' which preceded all language?

No, it doesn't matter anymore, it's ***@insain.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
I reconstructed a group of similar words, PIC for bird, still present in beak
and in the verb pick, PEC for smaller cattle, mostly sheep and goats and swine,
but also cows, a word present in Latin pecora 'cattle' and in pecunia 'money'
from a silver ingot worth a house or a cow and decorated with a cow, then PAC
for horse, present in Avestan aspa Sanskrit asva both 'horse', from AS PAC,
upward AS horse PAC, originally small pony-like horses used for transporting
loads up a hill or a mountain slope in Central Asia, then also in PAC AS AS
Pegasos Pegasus, the winged horse of poetry, initially personifying the hot
summer wind Afghanetz that blows from the Aral Sea along the Amu Darya upward
to the Hindukush, horse PAC upward AS upward AS, the banks of the Amu Darya
having been the first Indo-European homeland where the oldest layer of Greek
mythology came from, therefore the winged horse of poetry. Derivatives of PEC
and PAC were mixed to some extent. PEC is present in ibex, PEC and PAC are
combined in Italian vacca 'cow' Greek bos 'cattle' English bovine. What is
the language of mbuaxe / mboxe? In a linguistic forum you should care about
a clear notation, and look up the meaning of a word before you go public with
a new etymology. As for equine, this word is the adjective to Latin equus
'horse', from AC PAS *H1eqwos hippos equus Epona havonen, expanse of earth
with water AC everywhere (in a plain) PAS - riding this animal you can get
everywhere in the Uralic steppes (second IE homeland) and the Pontic steppes
(third IE homeland). Epona was the Gallo-Roman horse goddess and an alias
of Rhea, mother of Zeus and Poseidon and Hades. Rhea named the River Rha
today Volga between the Uralic and Pontic steppes, in my opinion the 2nd
and 3rd Indo-European homeland respectively.
You see, etymology requires a lot of knowledge, and even more so when you
go beyond the current etymologies. To make it short: can you tell me what
language is mbuaxa / mboxe ?

Daud, in a global scientific forum on language you should make yourself
to what language(s) belong mbuaxa / mboxe, and what do those words mean?
A new thought. PIC and PEC and PAC, as explained yesterday, may be inverses
of the very ancient *KAPA that lives on in English capture, and would have
named prey in the Stone Age, birds PIC, especially fowl, horses PAC, and
animals in between the sizes of birds and horses, PEC.

Franz, I don't know why you can't understand my comments, perhaps you simply disagree.
Beak, peck, mac.erate/mast.icate ~ (mast.itis) all from milking, mbuatl/mboxe/ibogi etc.
Does it really matter which language label is applied to a 'word' which preceded all language?

-
It is simply too deep for Neo-etymologists to ponder.