Duðan Vukotiã wrote:

[...]
You don't even try to read what I have
written,


Yes, I do, [...]

It doesn't occur to you that if you stop making unsupported assertions,
then you'll stop getting criticized for making unsupported assertions.

Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:04 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.
When did they become obsolete? Is it, just like everything else, because
you say so?

Can you not see

"Can you not see?" "Can you not see?" "Can you not see?" Du¹an, can you
not see that this is not how this is done, and that this is why I keep
*telling* you that? And yet here you go again, with the same old trick,
the same old appeal to *please* see what you see when it *isn't* obvious
and when you have nothing of substance to back it up.

that heaven and Ger. Himmel (heaven) are derived from
the same "source" as Nebel (fog) or Serb. nebo (sky)? According to
"modern" root-diggers, English heaven is derived from a sufixed form
*ke-men-, while German Nebel and Latin nebula, Greek nephele as well
as Serbian nebo (sky) "sprang" from the root *nebh-.

I don't know who "modern root-diggers" are--you mean, people like
yourself who don't know what you're doing and yet presume to be
producing convincing information?

It is the reason
why I am saying that the main principles on which the "reconstructed"
PIE "roots" are based are obsolete and useless.

I see you draw no connection that leads to this conclusion from your
previous remarks. Do you have no idea at all how to make an argument?
How to reason logically from premises to a conclusion?

Your premises:

        Some "modern" root-diggers claim heaven is a suffixed
        for *ke-men-.

        They also claim that Nebel and nebula and nephele and
        nebo come from *nebh-.

Your conclusion:

        The main principles on which "reconstructed" PIE "roots"
        are based are obsolete and useless.

I don't even know if you're saying that the derivations above *are* or
*are not* the "reconstructed" PIE roots. If they are, then there is
nothing linking your premises to your conclusion. If they are not, then
since your premises are not that these relationships are true, but only
that people whom you call "modern" root-diggers *claim* them to be true,
there is still no connection. The earlier reconstructions aren't
obsolete because unnamed later "researchers" claim that they are.

Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:04 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net
especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.
When did they become obsolete? Is it, just like everything else, because
you say so?
Can you not see
"Can you not see?" "Can you not see?" "Can you not see?" Du¹an, can you
not see that this is not how this is done, and that this is why I keep
*telling* you that? And yet here you go again, with the same old trick,
the same old appeal to *please* see what you see when it *isn't* obvious
and when you have nothing of substance to back it up.

that heaven and Ger. Himmel (heaven) are derived from
the same "source" as Nebel (fog) or Serb. nebo (sky)? According to
"modern" root-diggers, English heaven is derived from a sufixed form
*ke-men-, while German Nebel and Latin nebula, Greek nephele as well
as Serbian nebo (sky) "sprang" from the root *nebh-.
I don't know who "modern root-diggers" are--you mean, people like
yourself who don't know what you're doing and yet presume to be
producing convincing information?

It is the reason
why I am saying that the main principles on which the "reconstructed"
PIE "roots" are based are obsolete and useless.
I see you draw no connection that leads to this conclusion from your
previous remarks. Do you have no idea at all how to make an argument?
How to reason logically from premises to a conclusion?

Your premises:

        Some "modern" root-diggers claim heaven is a suffixed
        for *ke-men-.

        They also claim that Nebel and nebula and nephele and
        nebo come from *nebh-.

Your conclusion:

        The main principles on which "reconstructed" PIE "roots"
        are based are obsolete and useless.

I don't even know if you're saying that the derivations above *are* or
*are not* the "reconstructed" PIE roots. If they are, then there is
nothing linking your premises to your conclusion. If they are not, then
since your premises are not that these relationships are true, but only
that people whom you call "modern" root-diggers *claim* them to be true,
there is still no connection. The earlier reconstructions aren't
obsolete because unnamed later "researchers" claim that they are.

OK, maybe  I used an inadequate term here. When I said "obsolete" I
meant "worn out", "ineffective", "indistinct" and not  "no longer in
use".
If you are unable to understand the kinship between German Himmel and
Nebel (heaven, fog) and all the other words I mentioned above

Once *again* you exonerate yourself from supporting your claims by
declaring that I should be able to see them. Look: either *you* explain
what you have discovered, or stop pretending that you have discovered
something and then blaming it on everyone else that they can't
"understand" or or "see" it

On Apr 7, 9:04 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.
When did they become obsolete? Is it, just like everything else, because
you say so?

Can you not see

that heaven and Ger. Himmel (heaven) are derived from
the same "source" as Nebel (fog) or Serb. nebo (sky)? According to
"modern" root-diggers, English heaven is derived from a sufixed form
*ke-men-, while German Nebel and Latin nebula, Greek nephele as well
as Serbian nebo (sky) "sprang" from the root *nebh-.

It is the reason
why I am saying that the main principles on which the "reconstructed"
PIE "roots" are based are obsolete and useless.

Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
Simply, I didn't want to underestimate your intellectual capacity and
I kindly asked you if you were able to understand the relation between
Himmel and Nebel.

If you're claiming one, then explain it, and in a methodical, scientific
manner. It's not my job to do your work for you, and you have no
business claiming something if you're less capable than you think I am
of explaining it.

You're like a guy who takes a date to an expensive restaurant to impress
her and at the end of the meal asks her if she has enough money with her
to pay for the meal, while still expecting to get laid.

On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:04 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net
especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.
When did they become obsolete? Is it, just like everything else, because
you say so?
Can you not see
"Can you not see?" "Can you not see?" "Can you not see?" Du¹an, can you
not see that this is not how this is done, and that this is why I keep
*telling* you that? And yet here you go again, with the same old trick,
the same old appeal to *please* see what you see when it *isn't* obvious
and when you have nothing of substance to back it up.

that heaven and Ger. Himmel (heaven) are derived from
the same "source" as Nebel (fog) or Serb. nebo (sky)? According to
"modern" root-diggers, English heaven is derived from a sufixed form
*ke-men-, while German Nebel and Latin nebula, Greek nephele as well
as Serbian nebo (sky) "sprang" from the root *nebh-.
I don't know who "modern root-diggers" are--you mean, people like
yourself who don't know what you're doing and yet presume to be
producing convincing information?

It is the reason
why I am saying that the main principles on which the "reconstructed"
PIE "roots" are based are obsolete and useless.
I see you draw no connection that leads to this conclusion from your
previous remarks. Do you have no idea at all how to make an argument?
How to reason logically from premises to a conclusion?

Your premises:

Some "modern" root-diggers claim heaven is a suffixed
for *ke-men-.

They also claim that Nebel and nebula and nephele and
nebo come from *nebh-.

Your conclusion:

The main principles on which "reconstructed" PIE "roots"
are based are obsolete and useless.

I don't even know if you're saying that the derivations above *are* or
*are not* the "reconstructed" PIE roots. If they are, then there is
nothing linking your premises to your conclusion. If they are not, then
since your premises are not that these relationships are true, but only
that people whom you call "modern" root-diggers *claim* them to be true,
there is still no connection. The earlier reconstructions aren't
obsolete because unnamed later "researchers" claim that they are.

OK, maybe I used an inadequate term here. When I said "obsolete" I
meant "worn out", "ineffective", "indistinct" and not "no longer in
use".
If you are unable to understand the kinship between German Himmel and
Nebel (heaven, fog) and all the other words I mentioned above

Simply, I didn't want to underestimate your intellectual capacity and
I kindly asked you if you were able to understand the relation between
Himmel and Nebel.

Dušan Vukotić wrote:

Simply, I didn't want to underestimate your intellectual capacity and
I kindly asked you if you were able to understand the relation between
Himmel and Nebel.

If you're claiming one, then explain it, and in a methodical, scientific
manner. It's not my job to do your work for you, and you have no
business claiming something if you're less capable than you think I am
of explaining it.

"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:6484e7203a57012ae3c06c6de0413795@pseudo.borked.net...

On Apr 8, 4:42 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
You're like a guy who takes a date to an expensive restaurant to impress
her and at the end of the meal asks her if she has enough money with her
to pay for the meal, while still expecting to get laid.

Is he going to get lucky or not? We're all dying to find out.

Let's wait and see what Heidi has to say.

On Apr 8, 4:42 pm, Harlan Messinger

hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
You're like a guy who takes a date to an expensive restaurant to impress
her and at the end of the meal asks her if she has enough money with her
to pay for the meal, while still expecting to get laid.

Is he going to get lucky or not? We're all dying to find out.

On Apr 8, 4:42 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
You're like a guy who takes a date to an expensive restaurant to impress
her and at the end of the meal asks her if she has enough money with her
to pay for the meal, while still expecting to get laid.

Is he going to get lucky or not? We're all dying to find out.

On Apr 8, 10:39 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
Simply, I didn't want to underestimate your intellectual capacity and
I kindly asked you if you were able to understand the relation between
Himmel and Nebel.
If you're claiming one, then explain it, and in a methodical, scientific
manner. It's not my job to do your work for you, and you have no
business claiming something if you're less capable than you think I am
of explaining it.

I told you the following: "tell me if you cannot understand the
relation between Himmel and Nebel and I am going to explain it to
you".
Are you illiterate?

Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 8, 10:39 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
Simply, I didn't want to underestimate your intellectual capacity and
I kindly asked you if you were able to understand the relation between
Himmel and Nebel.
If you're claiming one, then explain it, and in a methodical, scientific
manner. It's not my job to do your work for you, and you have no
business claiming something if you're less capable than you think I am
of explaining it.

I told you the following: "tell me if you cannot understand the
relation between Himmel and Nebel and I am going to explain it to
you".
Are you illiterate?

I don't have to perform for you before you explain *your* claim.

Besides, I suspect that what you're doing is testing the waters to find
out whether you can tell me any kind of nonsense that pleases you
without expecting a challenge.- Hide quoted text -

Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 8, 10:39 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
Simply, I didn't want to underestimate your intellectual capacity and
I kindly asked you if you were able to understand the relation between
Himmel and Nebel.
If you're claiming one, then explain it, and in a methodical, scientific
manner. It's not my job to do your work for you, and you have no
business claiming something if you're less capable than you think I am
of explaining it.

I told you the following: "tell me if you cannot understand the
relation between Himmel and Nebel and I am going to explain it to
you".
Are you illiterate?

I don't have to perform for you before you explain *your* claim.

Besides, I suspect that what you're doing is testing the waters to find
out whether you can tell me any kind of nonsense that pleases you
without expecting a challenge.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -