On Mar 9, 12:32 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:



It may be "obvious," but it's wrong. Its reduplicative gi- gnos- .

There are two forms, gignosko and ginosko, so if gnos-
was the stem, there could not have been a ginosko,
the gnos- would have remained intact. And, by the way,
I explain gnosis via CO OC NOS, rump form -- -c nos.

Everything else you wrote merely shows that you do not have the
slightest idea what comparative linguistics is.

Reading sci.lang for years I got the impression that
sound laws are powerful, almost as good as algebra.
By and by I began doubting. Now you are telling me
sound laws are just observed regularities. Anthony
says there are 5,000 to 6,000 reconstructed PIE
words, while there may have been 30,000 to 50,000
PIE words (all varieties taken together, I assume,
all the PIEs spoken at different places and times).
This means the bulk of PIE can't be reconstructed.
Only the regular cases that follow the rules of sound
change. He mentions Greek theos, origin of Zeus,
and Latin deus. The two words appear as obvious
cognates, but they can't be established as such via
rules of sound change, th would have become Latin
f, so that some scholars proposed festus as cognate
of theos. In my opinion, PIE failed in the case of theos
and Zeus, for the oldest written form of Zeus we have
dates to the Middle Helladic period of time, 1 650 BC,
namely the form Ss Ey R or Sseyr on the Tiryns Disk.
I propose TYR as origin of the emphatic Sseyr.

They must start the computers anew, so I end this
message, and go on later in a reply to Brian.

On Mar 9, 12:32 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:



It may be "obvious," but it's wrong. Its reduplicative gi- gnos- .

There are two forms, gignosko and ginosko, so if gnos-
was the stem, there could not have been a ginosko,
the gnos- would have remained intact. And, by the way,
I explain gnosis via CO OC NOS, rump form -- -c nos.

Everything else you wrote merely shows that you do not have the
slightest idea what comparative linguistics is.

Reading sci.lang for years I got the impression that
sound laws are powerful, almost as good as algebra.

By and by I began doubting. Now you are telling me
sound laws are just observed regularities. Anthony
says there are 5,000 to 6,000 reconstructed PIE
words, while there may have been 30,000 to 50,000
PIE words (all varieties taken together, I assume,
all the PIEs spoken at different places and times).
This means the bulk of PIE can't be reconstructed.
Only the regular cases that follow the rules of sound
change.

He mentions Greek theos, origin of Zeus,
and Latin deus. The two words appear as obvious
cognates, but they can't be established as such via
rules of sound change, th would have become Latin
f, so that some scholars proposed festus as cognate
of theos. In my opinion, PIE failed in the case of theos
and Zeus, for the oldest written form of Zeus we have
dates to the Middle Helladic period of time, 1 650 BC,
namely the form Ss Ey R or Sseyr on the Tiryns Disk.
I propose TYR as origin of the emphatic Sseyr.

They must start the computers anew, so I end this
message, and go on later in a reply to Brian.

He mentions Greek theos, origin of Zeus,
and Latin deus. The two words appear as obvious
cognates, but they can't be established as such via
rules of sound change, th would have become Latin
f, so that some scholars proposed festus as cognate
of theos. In my opinion, PIE failed in the case of theos
and Zeus, for the oldest written form of Zeus we have
dates to the Middle Helladic period of time, 1 650 BC,
namely the form Ss Ey R or Sseyr on the Tiryns Disk.
I propose TYR as origin of the emphatic Sseyr.

The oldest attested cognate is Sanskrit Dyaus from the Rig Veda which
has been dated to anywhere from 1500 B.C. (Western Scholars) to
3000-6000 B.C. mostly by Indian scholars.

On Mar 10, 12:08 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:

He mentions Greek theos, origin of Zeus,
and Latin deus. The two words appear as obvious
cognates, but they can't be established as such via
rules of sound change, th would have become Latin
f, so that some scholars proposed festus as cognate
of theos. In my opinion, PIE failed in the case of theos
and Zeus, for the oldest written form of Zeus we have
dates to the Middle Helladic period of time, 1 650 BC,
namely the form Ss Ey R or Sseyr on the Tiryns Disk.
I propose TYR as origin of the emphatic Sseyr.

The oldest attested cognate is Sanskrit Dyaus from the Rig Veda which
has been dated to anywhere from 1500 B.C. (Western Scholars) to
3000-6000 B.C. mostly by Indian scholars.

Zeus (Jupiter; Skt. Dyaus Pitar) is related to Sanskrit word Deva
(god; Slavic Div; Latin Deus, Divus) and Dyaus could be taken as a one
of the Deva pronounciation forms. The ancient supreme gods always were
connected to the sun or sky (Latvian debesis sky; Serb. nebo sky) and

their names had mainly been derived from the primal Gon-Bel basis.

Naturally, once the supreme heathen gods, after the implementation of
the Christian religion, became the personification of evil (devil;
Lat. diabolus; Gr. diabolos; Ita. diavolo; Serb. ðavo/l; ger. Teufel;
Swed. djävul; Ice. djöfull).

Yes, it did. Like astrophycicists and nuclear scientists they see every
irregularity as a lead that can take them even further back. But all
scientists tend to stop were evidence ends. Shame on them?

On Mar 9, 12:45 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

Of course. But you've produced no reconstructions. Indeed,
it's clear that you've not the foggiest idea what the term
means.

If I propose a word or a compound in a language spoken
a very long time ago, and if I do so on the basis of laws
or rules, then it is a reconstruction.

Which takes no time at all. They're obvious crap produced
by a self-deluded and rather pathetic ignoramus.

So you can't rule out CO OC as origin of English to watch,
and instead you must insult me, as Peter T. Daniels does.

You're a liar. He said that there was no point doing so,
because you've presented no reason for anyone to take them
seriously.

He admitted and conceded and confirmed de facto and
via insulting me that he can't rule out CO OC as origin
of English to watch, just as you above. He could rule out
SAI as origin of Greek psy-, but he can't rule out CO OC
as origin of watch. Nor can you, apparently.

He tells me sound laws are just observed regularities. Ptolemaic
astronomy relied on observed regularities, but was flawed by the
lack of understanding the solar system, the Milky Way, and the
universe.

PIE lacks an understanding of the nature of early language. The
possibility that also short words such as watch and see could be
derivatives of _compounds_ did not occur to PIE scholars.

On Mar 10, 10:26 am, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:

- Until you lay out a systematic description of your method, any
serious reader would dismiss it without further reading. If you were
doing science, you would have such a method, and you would concede
to the obvious point of your critics and lay it out.

Your "science" parroting cannot be of any help.

You don't even know what the real meaning of the word "science" is!

Stop pretending to be something you are not, Engine!

You are a simple and uneducated viking - barefooted and wrapped in a
coat made of untreated sheepskin.

On Mar 10, 10:26 am, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:



Yes, it did. Like astrophycicists and nuclear scientists they see every
irregularity as a lead that can take them even further back. But all
scientists tend to stop were evidence ends. Shame on them?

Early astronomers made a funny observation. Planets move
forward, slow down, move backward for a short while, and then
forward again. For example Mars, whom the Egyptians saw
as the unruly Seth. Ptolemy found an explanation that was
ingenious for the time being: those planets move along epicycles,
kind of small wheels mounted on the circumference of a big wheel.
The Ptolemaic system worked well, and for a long time. However,
calculating the epicycles was tedious. There were exceptions
that had to be explained by rules, and then these rules had
exceptions that had to be explained by further rules, and so on.
The epicylces led to a cancer of metastasing rules and extra
rules and special rules. Copernicus and Kepler solved the
problem by declaring that only the moon revolves about the
Earth which is a planet and like all other planets revolves
about the sun ... There is a similar situation in paleolinguistics.
PIE is in the phase of a Ptolemaic system. Time for a
Copernican revolution, a total shift of perspective.

The difference between Copernicus and Gnaedingus is that Copernicus
relied on solid data and explicit calculations.

Mr Daniels, I really must ask why you continue to respond to Franz's
every post when it has long been obvious that he is mentally ill. Do
you think you can actually change his mind and teach him something
about historical linguistics? Or do you feel that Franz's ravings,
spoken in so authoritative a tone, could lead some layman language
lover here astray, and you have to represent reason and sense to that
vulnerable community?

FWIW, most people I've talked with in the academy on the matter of
Internet kooks say that the best solution is to simply ignore them,
because in spite of our best efforts the public wouldn't really
understand linguistics anyway. It's just not worth countering kooks
when we could be concentrating on our own work.

Pardon me, but it seems you've lost many hours--days or weeks total--
of your life to rebutting a madman. Why?

On Mar 10, 7:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

The difference between Copernicus and Gnaedingus is that Copernicus
relied on solid data and explicit calculations.

Mr Daniels, I really must ask why you continue to respond to Franz's
every post when it has long been obvious that he is mentally ill. Do
you think you can actually change his mind and teach him something
about historical linguistics? Or do you feel that Franz's ravings,
spoken in so authoritative a tone, could lead some layman language
lover here astray, and you have to represent reason and sense to that
vulnerable community?

FWIW, most people I've talked with in the academy on the matter of
Internet kooks say that the best solution is to simply ignore them,
because in spite of our best efforts the public wouldn't really
understand linguistics anyway. It's just not worth countering kooks
when we could be concentrating on our own work.

Pardon me, but it seems you've lost many hours--days or weeks total--
of your life to rebutting a madman. Why?

*snip*

On Mar 10, 7:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

The difference between Copernicus and Gnaedingus is that Copernicus
relied on solid data and explicit calculations.

Mr Daniels, I really must ask why you continue to respond to Franz's

every post when it has long been obvious that he is mentally ill. Do
you think you can actually change his mind and teach him something
about historical linguistics? Or do you feel that Franz's ravings,
spoken in so authoritative a tone, could lead some layman language
lover here astray, and you have to represent reason and sense to that
vulnerable community?

FWIW, most people I've talked with in the academy on the matter of
Internet kooks say that the best solution is to simply ignore them,
because in spite of our best efforts the public wouldn't really
understand linguistics anyway. It's just not worth countering kooks
when we could be concentrating on our own work.

Pardon me, but it seems you've lost many hours--days or weeks total--
of your life to rebutting a madman. Why?

By the way, Peter: the Copernicus of early language would
be Richard Fester, Prof. Dr. Richard Fester, if you please.

Christopher Culver wrote:

FWIW, most people I've talked with in the academy on the matter of
Internet kooks say that the best solution is to simply ignore them,
because in spite of our best efforts the public wouldn't really
understand linguistics anyway. It's just not worth countering kooks
when we could be concentrating on our own work.

If they are just ignored, isn't there the risk of serious contributors being
outnumbered by prolific kooks?

There's a German newsgroup that was dominated by a particularly obnoxious
crank. But it turned out that the rebuttals made up the bulk of the
valuable contributions, and when the crank stopped posting, the group was
virtually dead.