Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Apr 15, 1:08 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Apr 15, 12:09 am, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 14, 9:20 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:45 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net
Do you think Latin "habeo" is related to German "haben"?
Of course it is, as well as it is related to Serbo-Slavic
"imati" (have)!
Well, since they *aren't* related, you've just shown how meaningless "of
course" is when it comes from you.
You believe that anything written in "scientific" books must be
true.
No. I'm convinced by the evidence. You know, evidence? Which you never
provide? You seem so perplexed at your failure to sway anyone, yet you
just can't figure this out, can you, the difference between science on
one hand and whatever it is you're doing on the other?
There is no evidences at all that 'haben' and 'habeo' are false
cognates.
Then you don't even know what "evidence" means.

What do you think, is German Heft (grip; MHG haft fetter,
bond) related to habeo/capio and haben?
If it's related to "haben", then it isn't related to "habeo" or "capio"..

On the other side is Serbian
hvat (grip) and verbs hvatati (grip, grasp, take, seize; Russ.
хватать), hapiti (take, grab; Czech �ha�раti grab, seize) and okovati
(fetter). If I say that Slavic hapati (take, grab, seize) and German
haben (have) are related to Slavic hvat- and Germanic haft- (Ger. Haft
imprisonment) I do not know will you be able to understand it.
If haben is, then habeo isn't. What part of that don't YOU understand?

Therefore, compare English captiv-ity (Lat. captivus prisoner) and
German Haft (jail, detainment; cf. Serb. hapsiti arrest) and maybe you
will be able to grasp that Latin capio and habeo are the words that
are derived from the same basis.
That's funny. You just got through an entire demonstration that doesn't
mention "habeo" anywhere, and then you imagine that you've demonstrated
something about "habeo".

After all the above Germanic and Slavic examples are presented, only a
complete idiot could claim that Latin habeo and OE habban are
unrelated words or false cognates.
ROFL. None of the above demonstrates ANYTHING about "habeo". You didn't
even MENTION "habeo" except (1) in your conclusion and (2) in your taunt
that began "If I say that ..." and ended "... will you be able to
understand it". No demonstration, just, ONCE AGAIN:

  - a torrent of assorted words from different
    languages that may or may not be related, but no
    explanation of why we can be confident that they are;

  - an outright refusal to acknowledge the reasoning that leads
    to the conclusion that they aren't;

  - claims that what you say is true because it's supposedly
    clear, lack of evidence notwithstanding, and a failure to
    grasp that the reason we speak of "evidence" is that
    what's supposedly "clear" is often not what's *true*;

  - taunts and threats that if I don't agree with you,
    you'll consider me an idiot; and

  - a conclusion that, because of all of the above, still
    amounts to nothing more than "because I say so".

Seriously, when I read your "argument" (carefully, every word, several
times), I was truly laughing out loud. It amazes me that you can put
together an exposition like this that doesn't address the question at
hand and then imagine that you've settled the question.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Before you started to laugh you should compare OE cepan and habban
(cf. Lat. capio, habeo... keep), both with the meaning keep (cf.
Serbian �uvanje keeping).

And one more time: you have no demonstration of your own, just one more
instruction to "compare". Compare, compare, compare. Please compare. I
beg you to compare. Always telling other people to compare, always in
lieu of your doing the work yourself to demonstrate the connections or
even the relevance of these words you keep introducing.

An idiot remains an idiot; regardless of arguments...

Yes, you do. At least, until you learn how to make a sound one

Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Apr 15, 1:08 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Apr 15, 12:09 am, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 14, 9:20 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:45 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net
Do you think Latin "habeo" is related to German "haben"?
Of course it is, as well as it is related to Serbo-Slavic
"imati" (have)!
Well, since they *aren't* related, you've just shown how meaningless "of
course" is when it comes from you.
You believe that anything written in "scientific" books must be
true.
No. I'm convinced by the evidence. You know, evidence? Which you never
provide? You seem so perplexed at your failure to sway anyone, yet you
just can't figure this out, can you, the difference between science on
one hand and whatever it is you're doing on the other?
There is no evidences at all that 'haben' and 'habeo' are false
cognates.
Then you don't even know what "evidence" means.

What do you think, is German Heft (grip; MHG haft fetter,
bond) related to habeo/capio and haben?
If it's related to "haben", then it isn't related to "habeo" or "capio"..

On the other side is Serbian
hvat (grip) and verbs hvatati (grip, grasp, take, seize; Russ.
хватать), hapiti (take, grab; Czech �ha�раti grab, seize) and okovati
(fetter). If I say that Slavic hapati (take, grab, seize) and German
haben (have) are related to Slavic hvat- and Germanic haft- (Ger. Haft
imprisonment) I do not know will you be able to understand it.
If haben is, then habeo isn't. What part of that don't YOU understand?

Therefore, compare English captiv-ity (Lat. captivus prisoner) and
German Haft (jail, detainment; cf. Serb. hapsiti arrest) and maybe you
will be able to grasp that Latin capio and habeo are the words that
are derived from the same basis.
That's funny. You just got through an entire demonstration that doesn't
mention "habeo" anywhere, and then you imagine that you've demonstrated
something about "habeo".

After all the above Germanic and Slavic examples are presented, only a
complete idiot could claim that Latin habeo and OE habban are
unrelated words or false cognates.
ROFL. None of the above demonstrates ANYTHING about "habeo". You didn't
even MENTION "habeo" except (1) in your conclusion and (2) in your taunt
that began "If I say that ..." and ended "... will you be able to
understand it". No demonstration, just, ONCE AGAIN:

  - a torrent of assorted words from different
    languages that may or may not be related, but no
    explanation of why we can be confident that they are;

  - an outright refusal to acknowledge the reasoning that leads
    to the conclusion that they aren't;

  - claims that what you say is true because it's supposedly
    clear, lack of evidence notwithstanding, and a failure to
    grasp that the reason we speak of "evidence" is that
    what's supposedly "clear" is often not what's *true*;

  - taunts and threats that if I don't agree with you,
    you'll consider me an idiot; and

  - a conclusion that, because of all of the above, still
    amounts to nothing more than "because I say so".

Seriously, when I read your "argument" (carefully, every word, several
times), I was truly laughing out loud. It amazes me that you can put
together an exposition like this that doesn't address the question at
hand and then imagine that you've settled the question.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Before you started to laugh you should compare OE cepan and habban
(cf. Lat. capio, habeo... keep), both with the meaning keep (cf.
Serbian �uvanje keeping).

And one more time: you have no demonstration of your own, just one more
instruction to "compare". Compare, compare, compare. Please compare. I
beg you to compare. Always telling other people to compare, always in
lieu of your doing the work yourself to demonstrate the connections or
even the relevance of these words you keep introducing.

An idiot remains an idiot; regardless of arguments...

Yes, you do. At least, until you learn how to make a sound one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 15, 2:39 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Apr 15, 1:08 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Apr 15, 12:09 am, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 14, 9:20 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:45 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net
Do you think Latin "habeo" is related to German "haben"?
Of course it is, as well as it is related to Serbo-Slavic
"imati" (have)!
Well, since they *aren't* related, you've just shown how meaningless "of
course" is when it comes from you.
You believe that anything written in "scientific" books must be
true.
No. I'm convinced by the evidence. You know, evidence? Which you never
provide? You seem so perplexed at your failure to sway anyone, yet you
just can't figure this out, can you, the difference between science on
one hand and whatever it is you're doing on the other?
There is no evidences at all that 'haben' and 'habeo' are false
cognates.
Then you don't even know what "evidence" means.
What do you think, is German Heft (grip; MHG haft fetter,
bond) related to habeo/capio and haben?
If it's related to "haben", then it isn't related to "habeo" or "capio".
On the other side is Serbian
hvat (grip) and verbs hvatati (grip, grasp, take, seize; Russ.
хватать), hapiti (take, grab; Czech �ha�раti grab, seize) and okovati
(fetter). If I say that Slavic hapati (take, grab, seize) and German
haben (have) are related to Slavic hvat- and Germanic haft- (Ger. Haft
imprisonment) I do not know will you be able to understand it.
If haben is, then habeo isn't. What part of that don't YOU understand?
Therefore, compare English captiv-ity (Lat. captivus prisoner) and
German Haft (jail, detainment; cf. Serb. hapsiti arrest) and maybe you
will be able to grasp that Latin capio and habeo are the words that
are derived from the same basis.
That's funny. You just got through an entire demonstration that doesn't
mention "habeo" anywhere, and then you imagine that you've demonstrated
something about "habeo".
After all the above Germanic and Slavic examples are presented, only a
complete idiot could claim that Latin habeo and OE habban are
unrelated words or false cognates.
ROFL. None of the above demonstrates ANYTHING about "habeo". You didn't
even MENTION "habeo" except (1) in your conclusion and (2) in your taunt
that began "If I say that ..." and ended "... will you be able to
understand it". No demonstration, just, ONCE AGAIN:
- a torrent of assorted words from different
languages that may or may not be related, but no
explanation of why we can be confident that they are;
- an outright refusal to acknowledge the reasoning that leads
to the conclusion that they aren't;
- claims that what you say is true because it's supposedly
clear, lack of evidence notwithstanding, and a failure to
grasp that the reason we speak of "evidence" is that
what's supposedly "clear" is often not what's *true*;
- taunts and threats that if I don't agree with you,
you'll consider me an idiot; and
- a conclusion that, because of all of the above, still
amounts to nothing more than "because I say so".
Seriously, when I read your "argument" (carefully, every word, several
times), I was truly laughing out loud. It amazes me that you can put
together an exposition like this that doesn't address the question at
hand and then imagine that you've settled the question.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Before you started to laugh you should compare OE cepan and habban
(cf. Lat. capio, habeo... keep), both with the meaning keep (cf.
Serbian �uvanje keeping).
And one more time: you have no demonstration of your own, just one more
instruction to "compare". Compare, compare, compare. Please compare. I
beg you to compare. Always telling other people to compare, always in
lieu of your doing the work yourself to demonstrate the connections or
even the relevance of these words you keep introducing.

I do not know what else you need in order to understand that cepan/
haban originates from the same basis as capio/habeo.

Everything is
fitting very nicely: phonetically, semantically. morphologically...

I do not know what else you need in order to understand that cepan/
haban originates from the same basis as capio/habeo.

I need you to explain why one man--yourself--with little or no
understanding of the established theory that leads to the conclusion
that they *aren't* related *despite* the superficial resemblance--should
be surprised that "because I say so" isn't sufficient to change people's
minds. That's what I need.

In this case we have a direct h <=> h correspondence between Latin and
English. If you start from my HSF "theory" and Gon-Bel-Gon basis
(which general meaning is "round heap") you will be able to grasp that
Serbian word imanje (from himanje) is the same word as English hamlet/
home and Latin habitus; all words derived from the verb "have" (Latin
habeo, Eng. have, Serb. h/imati; I hope you are not so stuped not to
see that Serbian "imati" originated from hibati; b => m sound
change).

On Apr 15, 8:22 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

I do not know what else you need in order to understand that cepan/
haban originates from the same basis as capio/habeo.
I need you to explain why one man--yourself--with little or no
understanding of the established theory that leads to the conclusion
that they *aren't* related *despite* the superficial resemblance--should
be surprised that "because I say so" isn't sufficient to change people's
minds. That's what I need.

What a funny guy you are Harlan! Established theory? Only a totaly
uneducated or "upside-down" trained "etymologist" could say that these
words have nothing more in common except the "vague" and "superficial
resemblance".

On Apr 15, 8:22 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

I do not know what else you need in order to understand that cepan/
haban originates from the same basis as capio/habeo.
I need you to explain why one man--yourself--with little or no
understanding of the established theory that leads to the conclusion
that they *aren't* related *despite* the superficial resemblance--should
be surprised that "because I say so" isn't sufficient to change people's
minds. That's what I need.

What a funny guy you are Harlan! Established theory? Only a totaly
uneducated or "upside-down" trained "etymologist" could say that these
words have nothing more in common except the "vague" and "superficial
resemblance". Didn't you know that "the flat Earth" was once a "well-
established theory"?

It is generally taken as true that the initial h in Germanic languages
corresponds to Latin c(k). One of the best examples to substantiate
the above statement is relation between heart (Herz) and cor (cordis;
Greek κα�διά). Nevertheless, try to imagine the following sound
correspodences among words like English heard, crowd, Latin grex
gregis (heard), Serbian krdo (heard) and družina (society, group of
people/animals, pack). Following this example

we might say that
English initials k, h (crowd, herd) corresponded to Latin g (grex
gregis; Greek αγει��ω gather together).

Now, let us take a more difficult example; English hamlet/home and
Latin habito (inhabit, dwell). I know that it is almost impossible for
you to understand the clear relations between Serbian naseobina
(settlement) and Latin inhabito (inhabit; Eng. inhabitance);

Slavic
dom and English home; Serbian domaćin (host, lord) and latin dominus
(master of a house, lord); Serbian selo (village) and English (hamlet)
etc.; but I hope you are not so dull not to see that hamlet is related
to habito.

In this case we have a direct h <=> h correspondence between Latin and
English. If you start from my HSF "theory" and Gon-Bel-Gon basis
(which general meaning is "round heap") you will be able to grasp

that
Serbian word imanje (from himanje) is the same word as English hamlet/
home and Latin habitus; all words derived from the verb "have" (Latin
habeo, Eng. have, Serb. h/imati; I hope you are not so stuped not to
see that Serbian "imati" originated from hibati; b => m sound
change).

I changed my mind. I'm not resting my case.

The flat-earth theory wasn't dispelled by somebody whose approach, like
yours, was (a) to say that the earth was round without providing
evidence, (b) to scoff at the people who said it was flat, and (c) then
got mad at people for not believing him just because he said so. It was
dispelled by layout out relevant observations and demonstrating how they
were consistent with the round-earth theory and inconsistent with the
flat-earth theory.

So it's foolish for you to bring up the flat-earth theory. The only way
it would be useful to mention would be if I were taking the position
that an old theory must be correct because it's the existing theory. No,
I'm telling you (again and again and again and again and again) that if
you want people who believe the old theory to believe a new theory
instead, you have to give them convincing reasons *why* you are right.
Not "because I say so", not because you plead, "please believe me", not
because you keep asking, "don't you see?", not because you'll call us
names and disrespect us if we don't believe you.

It is generally taken as true that the initial h in Germanic languages
corresponds to Latin  c(k). One of the best examples to substantiate
the above statement is relation between heart (Herz) and cor (cordis;
Greek κα�διά). Nevertheless, try to imagine the following sound
correspodences among words like English heard, crowd, Latin grex
gregis (heard), Serbian krdo (heard) and družina (society, group of
people/animals, pack). Following this example

What "example"? All you said is "try to imagine". "Try to imagine"
doesn't prove anything. CAN YOU PROVE THAT ALL THESE WORDS ARE RELATED?

we might say that
English initials k, h (crowd, herd) corresponded to Latin g (grex
gregis; Greek αγει��ω gather together).

Now, let us take a more difficult example; English hamlet/home and
Latin habito (inhabit, dwell). I know that it is almost impossible for
you to understand the clear relations between Serbian naseobina
(settlement) and Latin inhabito (inhabit; Eng. inhabitance);

ROFL. You have dubbed it "clear", despite what anybody else thinks, and
therefore you don't have to prove anything: either people believe you
because you say so, or they are simply incapable of understanding. ARE
YOU CAPABLE OF PROVING IT?

PROVE IT

Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 16, 2:14 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

PROVE IT

Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?

Are you able to grasp that "are you able to grasp", for the umpteenth
time, doesn't prove anything? Are you able to grasp that one more time
you are making a claim without proof?

If you are able to understand the relation among the above words, you
will also be able to realize that Slavic sam (alone; from u-samljen <> > u-saMbljen) and Serb. soba (room) are the cognates of English same and
Ger. zu-sammen (together; sammeln /collect/ and selbe /same/).

Before you talk about my ability to understand, you should demonstrate
your own supposed ability to understanding my proving it.

In case you are unable to grasp what I am talking here about, you
better "rest your case" and never change your mind again!

What I'm grasping is that once again you continue to be unable to prove
anything you claim, and once again you misguidedly think that asking
"can you grasp?" amounts to proof.

On Apr 16, 2:14 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

I changed my mind. I'm not resting my case.

The flat-earth theory wasn't dispelled by somebody whose approach, like
yours, was (a) to say that the earth was round without providing
evidence, (b) to scoff at the people who said it was flat, and (c) then
got mad at people for not believing him just because he said so. It was
dispelled by layout out relevant observations and demonstrating how they
were consistent with the round-earth theory and inconsistent with the
flat-earth theory.

It is interesting to mention that the ancient man (according to the
words he used to name the Earth: Sl. zemlja; Gr. γη, χώμα, γεωλοφος /
hill/, Lat. humus; gleba, globus; tumulus = cumulus; tomb /!!/, Eng.
clod) was aware that the Earth was round.

So it's foolish for you to bring up the flat-earth theory. The only way
it would be useful to mention would be if I were taking the position
that an old theory must be correct because it's the existing theory. No,
I'm telling you (again and again and again and again and again) that if
you want people who believe the old theory to believe a new theory
instead, you have to give them convincing reasons *why* you are right.
Not "because I say so", not because you plead, "please believe me", not
because you keep asking, "don't you see?", not because you'll call us
names and disrespect us if we don't believe you.

Not "because I say so", but because it is the truth!

It is generally taken as true that the initial h in Germanic languages
corresponds to Latin c(k). One of the best examples to substantiate
the above statement is relation between heart (Herz) and cor (cordis;
Greek κα�διά). Nevertheless, try to imagine the following sound
correspodences among words like English heard, crowd, Latin grex
gregis (heard), Serbian krdo (heard) and družina (society, group of
people/animals, pack). Following this example
What "example"? All you said is "try to imagine". "Try to imagine"
doesn't prove anything. CAN YOU PROVE THAT ALL THESE WORDS ARE RELATED?



we might say that
English initials k, h (crowd, herd) corresponded to Latin g (grex
gregis; Greek αγει��ω gather together).
Now, let us take a more difficult example; English hamlet/home and
Latin habito (inhabit, dwell). I know that it is almost impossible for
you to understand the clear relations between Serbian naseobina
(settlement) and Latin inhabito (inhabit; Eng. inhabitance);
ROFL. You have dubbed it "clear", despite what anybody else thinks, and
therefore you don't have to prove anything: either people believe you
because you say so, or they are simply incapable of understanding. ARE
YOU CAPABLE OF PROVING IT?

Hamlet, Lat. habito, Serb. imanje (possession, assets, goods, domain,
estate) and selo (village) are the words that originated from the same
Gon-Bel-Gon basis ("round heap").

All the sound changes present in
these cases are well-known and easily explainable: hamlet <= Gon-Bel-
Gon => habito;

Serb. soba /room/, na-seobina /settlement/, na-selje
(from na-seblje) => selo (village). The ultimate importance is on
understanding of semantics and other logical issues that could
(exactly!) inform us how (and from which "source"?) the language had
been developed in the past.

On Apr 16, 2:14 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

PROVE IT

Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?

If you are able to understand the relation among the above words, you
will also be able to realize that Slavic sam (alone; from u-samljen <=
u-saMbljen) and Serb. soba (room) are the cognates of English same and
Ger. zu-sammen (together; sammeln /collect/ and selbe /same/).

In case you are unable to grasp what I am talking here about, you
better "rest your case" and never change your mind again!

On Apr 22, 7:06 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 16, 2:14 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net
PROVE IT
Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?
Are you able to grasp that "are you able to grasp", for the umpteenth
time, doesn't prove anything? Are you able to grasp that one more time
you are making a claim without proof?

If you are able to understand the relation among the above words, you
will also be able to realize that Slavic sam (alone; from u-samljen <=
u-saMbljen) and Serb. soba (room) are the cognates of English same and
Ger. zu-sammen (together; sammeln /collect/ and selbe /same/).
Before you talk about my ability to understand, you should demonstrate
your own supposed ability to understanding my proving it.

In case you are unable to grasp what I am talking here about, you
better "rest your case" and never change your mind again!
What I'm grasping is that once again you continue to be unable to prove
anything you claim, and once again you misguidedly think that asking
"can you grasp?" amounts to proof.

Can you grasp that Serbian oblak (cloud) and English cloud are
cognates?

Of course not, your way of thinking is (too) stereotypical and
burdened with a lot of wrong doctrines and theories.

Simply, your
brain is not able to function properly under such a monstrous amount
of useless information.

My brain is still waiting for you to provide something worth
comprehending: a proof.

Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?

Are you able to grasp that "are you able to grasp", for the umpteenth
time, doesn't prove anything? Are you able to grasp that one more time
you are making a claim without proof?