| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » Sir = cheese (caseus); sour = kiseo (sour)
Page 8 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
|
| Author |
Message |
| Duan Vukoti |
 Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 25, 8:40 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Quote: On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:43:28 -0700 (PDT), Dušan Vukotić
dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:dfbebc51-1c1b-4a15-bfac-eb02a3b29956@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
On Apr 25, 7:06 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Lat. sollus (whole) => salus (health);
It's <salu:s>, and it's not a derivative of <sollus>, though
they do go back to the same PIE root; <salu:s>, however,
unlike <sollus>, goes back to the zero-grade.
Yes, it must be a derivative of sollus (whole)
Too bad, because it isn't.
[...]
Greek ούλω (from όλοξ, όλος whole, entire, complete),
You still can't get it right, even when the correction is
staring you in the face: that's <hólos>, not <ólos>.
Try to be serious, Brainy. Didn't you know that Greek όλος
is hòlòs in Latin letters?
No, it isn't, <όλος> would be <ólos> in Latin letters.
No, οὖλος is oulos; ὀλoς (holos).. with breathing mark or not oulos/
olos and holos are the same, but differently pronounced word. We are
discussing the etymology of these word(s), not orthography.
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Duan Vukoti |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 24, 1:44am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 24, 11:19 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 11:41 am, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Duan Vukoti wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:06 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net
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?
My question is simple. There are three possibilities: 1) you can see
that zamelen and collect are related
If it were just a matter of "seeing" it, then what would we need you
for, in your mind? You're claiming it, we *don't* see it--or even if we
do "see" it, we're aware that not everything that *looks* related *is*
related, and we endlessly await from you a proof.
2) you can see that zamelen and
collect are unrelated 3) you can not determine whether the words
zamelen and collect are related or unrelated.
Stop playing games and prove whatever it is you're claiming to be true..
As long as we are debating roots going back as far back as the
putative times when PIE was spoken - it seems to me that the standard
model, Dusan's model and Gnaedinger's model are only competing
theories with no conceivable (with presently available evidence) way
of proof or disproof.
The standard model has been worked on for centuries and has the weight
of scholarship behind it but that means exactly that - that it is
accepted by most linguistics scholars.
If only Dusan and/or Gnaedinger would try to derive proto-romance from
the descended Romance languages using their respective theories - then
their derived roots can actually be compared against the predictions
of the standard model.
Until then we'll only see inconclusive bickering.
Apparently you still have no idea what you are talking about
Ross, you better stay out of the discussion; this is too complicated
for your retarded brain!
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| benlizro@ihug.co.nz |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 26, 8:49 am, Duan Vukoti <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 24, 1:44 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Apr 24, 11:19 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 11:41 am, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Duan Vukoti wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:06 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net
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?
My question is simple. There are three possibilities: 1) you can see
that zamelen and collect are related
If it were just a matter of "seeing" it, then what would we need you
for, in your mind? You're claiming it, we *don't* see it--or even if we
do "see" it, we're aware that not everything that *looks* related *is*
related, and we endlessly await from you a proof.
2) you can see that zamelen and
collect are unrelated 3) you can not determine whether the words
zamelen and collect are related or unrelated.
Stop playing games and prove whatever it is you're claiming to be true.
As long as we are debating roots going back as far back as the
putative times when PIE was spoken - it seems to me that the standard
model, Dusan's model and Gnaedinger's model are only competing
theories with no conceivable (with presently available evidence) way
of proof or disproof.
The standard model has been worked on for centuries and has the weight
of scholarship behind it but that means exactly that - that it is
accepted by most linguistics scholars.
If only Dusan and/or Gnaedinger would try to derive proto-romance from
the descended Romance languages using their respective theories - then
their derived roots can actually be compared against the predictions
of the standard model.
Until then we'll only see inconclusive bickering.
Apparently you still have no idea what you are talking about
Ross, you better stay out of the discussion; this is too complicated
for your retarded brain!
DV
Sure, I'm happy to be just a spectator at the big Kook-Off, as
Magdaloonian battles it out with Vu-Du and the Standard Model
(represented by analys...;-D). Better than anything on TV right now.
Ross Clark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian M. Scott |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:43:28 -0700 (PDT), Dušan Vukotić
<dusan.vukotic@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:dfbebc51-1c1b-4a15-bfac-eb02a3b29956@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
Quote: On Apr 25, 7:06 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Lat. sollus (whole) => salus (health);
It's <salu:s>, and it's not a derivative of <sollus>, though
they do go back to the same PIE root; <salu:s>, however,
unlike <sollus>, goes back to the zero-grade.
Yes, it must be a derivative of sollus (whole)
Too bad, because it isn't.
[...]
Quote: Greek ούλω (from όλοξ, όλος whole, entire, complete),
You still can't get it right, even when the correction is
staring you in the face: that's <hólos>, not <ólos>.
Try to be serious, Brainy. Didn't you know that Greek όλος
is hòlòs in Latin letters?
No, it isn't, <όλος> would be <ólos> in Latin letters.
Quote: It is just a matter of pronunciation;
No, it isn't. It's a matter of getting things right --
something you know very little about.
Quote: Ionians used oulos instaed of holos;
Actually, the Ion. form is <oûlos>. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Duan Vukoti |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 26, 1:38am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 26, 8:49 am, Duan Vukoti <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 24, 1:44 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Apr 24, 11:19 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 11:41 am, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Duan Vukoti wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:06 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net
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?
My question is simple. There are three possibilities: 1) you can see
that zamelen and collect are related
If it were just a matter of "seeing" it, then what would we need you
for, in your mind? You're claiming it, we *don't* see it--or even if we
do "see" it, we're aware that not everything that *looks* related *is*
related, and we endlessly await from you a proof.
2) you can see that zamelen and
collect are unrelated 3) you can not determine whether the words
zamelen and collect are related or unrelated.
Stop playing games and prove whatever it is you're claiming to be true.
As long as we are debating roots going back as far back as the
putative times when PIE was spoken - it seems to me that the standard
model, Dusan's model and Gnaedinger's model are only competing
theories with no conceivable (with presently available evidence) way
of proof or disproof.
The standard model has been worked on for centuries and has the weight
of scholarship behind it but that means exactly that - that it is
accepted by most linguistics scholars.
If only Dusan and/or Gnaedinger would try to derive proto-romance from
the descended Romance languages using their respective theories - then
their derived roots can actually be compared against the predictions
of the standard model.
Until then we'll only see inconclusive bickering.
Apparently you still have no idea what you are talking about
Ross, you better stay out of the discussion; this is too complicated
for your retarded brain!
DV
Sure, I'm happy to be just a spectator at the big Kook-Off, as
Magdaloonian battles it out with Vu-Du and the Standard Model
(represented by analys...;-D). Better than anything on TV right now.
Ross Clark-
Ok then, enjoy it..... :-)
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Duan Vukoti |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 26, 6:31 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Quote: On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Dušan Vukotić
dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bf6163a5-abc2-42f6-9e3b-5db567466da1@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
On Apr 25, 8:40 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:43:28 -0700 (PDT), Dušan Vukotić
dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:dfbebc51-1c1b-4a15-bfac-eb02a3b29956@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
On Apr 25, 7:06 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[...]
Greek ούλω (from όλοξ, όλος whole, entire, complete),
You still can't get it right, even when the correction is
staring you in the face: that's <hólos>, not <ólos>.
Try to be serious, Brainy. Didn't you know that Greek όλος
is hòlòs in Latin letters?
No, it isn't, <όλος> would be <ólos> in Latin letters.
No, οὖλος is oulos; ὀλoς (holos)..
You really are a dimwit.
[...]
You are an "orthographic" copy/paste imbecile, Brainy.
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian M. Scott |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Dušan Vukotić
<dusan.vukotic@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:bf6163a5-abc2-42f6-9e3b-5db567466da1@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
Quote: On Apr 25, 8:40 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:43:28 -0700 (PDT), Dušan Vukotić
dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:dfbebc51-1c1b-4a15-bfac-eb02a3b29956@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
On Apr 25, 7:06 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[...]
Quote: Greek ούλω (from όλοξ, όλος whole, entire, complete),
You still can't get it right, even when the correction is
staring you in the face: that's <hólos>, not <ólos>.
Try to be serious, Brainy. Didn't you know that Greek όλος
is hòlòs in Latin letters?
No, it isn't, <όλος> would be <ólos> in Latin letters.
No, οὖλος is oulos; ὀλoς (holos)..
You really are a dimwit.
[...] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:19 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 22, 7:58am, Duan Vukoti <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 16, 2:14pm, 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?
These each appear to have completely different origins.
(1)"same
perhaps abstracted from O.E. swa same "the same as," but more likely
from O.N. same, samr "same," both from P.Gmc. *samon (cf. O.S.,
O.H.G., Goth. sama; O.H.G. samant, Ger. samt "together, with," Goth.
samana "together," Du. zamelen "to collect," Ger. zusammen
"together"), from PIE *samos "same," from base *sem- "one,
together" (cf. Skt. samah "even, level, similar, identical;" Avestan
hama "similar, the same;" Gk. hama "together with, at the same time,"
homos "one and the same," homios "like, resembling," homalos "even;"
L. similis "like;" O.Ir. samail "likeness;" O.C.S. samu "himself").
O.E. had lost the pure form of the word; the modern word replaced
synonymous ilk (q.v.). "
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=s&p=2
(2) ''Zemlja' is not 'Slavic'.. If definitive anything, it's Baltic
(as far as IE is concerned). The root also appears in indo-iranian and
'dardic'.
(3) Latin 'cumulus' is not related to the above two roots. For an
contemporary cf see Baltic Latvian 'kamulis' - meaning 'ball' or 'ball
shaped'.
Quote:
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/).
Sure... just as I quoted above.. But it has nothing to do with your
attempted conflation of disparate roots.
Quote: In case you are unable to grasp what I am talking here about, you
better "rest your case" and never change your mind again!
DV
It would be better that you advance your hor-gone theory with one root
at a time..
That way you wouldn't be as likely to trip over troublesome facts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 29, 2:19am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
Quote: (3) Latin 'cumulus' is not related to the above two roots. For an
contemporary cf see Baltic Latvian 'kamulis' - meaning 'ball' or 'ball
shaped'.
You'd be more persuasive if you didn't constantly leave out the Slavic
Latvian or Germanic Latvian forms. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Duan Vukoti |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 29, 8:19am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
Quote: On Apr 22, 7:58am, Duan Vukoti <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 16, 2:14pm, 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?
These each appear to have completely different origins.
(1)"same
The ancient man realized the human being as a sort of "cumulus".
Serbian osoba (person); na-seobina (settlment), selo (village) - from
na-he-ho-bli-na => na-se-o-bli-na => na-se-lje > selo; Serb. selo
(vallage) is in fact celina (whole) or gomila (heap), oblast (area;
cf. Greek basileion royal palace; Serb. vaseljena cosmos, world;
vaseljenski (worldwide; vaseljenski patriarh = patriarch basileus); basileus (king). Compare Greek oikoumen (inhabitance) and Eng.
inhabitance
What is the relation among the following words: Lat. humanus,
humatio, humus, humidus, humilitas and Serb. Serb. osoba (person),
zemlja (earth, soil), umiti (wash /the face/), umilan (sycophantic),
omiljen (favorit), militi (to creep)? Try to compare Lat. simulatus
and Sebian sumljati (suspect; sumnjati; smlata, zamlata, smotan /
inapt, awkward/); Eng. smile and Serb. smejati se (from smiliti se,
smejuljiti /to attract somone's attention/).
I know that a big part of the people on sci.lang (who are unfamiliar
not only with lnguistics but with other social sciences) are unable to
understand what I am talkig about. Therefore, let us concentrate on
the English words smile and smirk. According to the modern (P)IE-
experts both of these words originated from the PIE root *smei- and
according to my HSF Xur-Bel-Gon-um theory smile and smirk are the
derivateve of the two different basis: smile from Gon-bel-Gon and
smirk from Gon-Bel-Hor-Gon. The two Serbian corresponding words to
English smile and smirk (OE smearcian) are smeh (smejuljenje;
smejuljiti => smejati se /to laugh/; Latv. smaids) and smejurija
(smejurenje). Modern lingua-scientist would also say that the above
two "smiling" words were derived from the suffixed forms *smile- and
*smeiro- not seeing that the root *smeiro- must be a double suffixed
*smei- (*smei-le-ro-). It means that Serbian smejurenje (smiling) at
first sounded as sme(b)lju-renje (from smiliti /endear/; cf. Serb.
ismevanje /mockery, derision/; cf. Eng. simian; Lat simia ape; Serb.
smijanje /laughter/, smeh; Latv. izsmiet /ape/: Serb. ismejati /
deride, bemock/) while smejuljenje was in a form of sme(b)lju-ljenje.
The Serbian words zabavljanje, zabaljanje (amusment, entertainment,
beguilement) and zbliavanje, zblienje (draw close, approaching) are
born from the same ur-basis as smejanje/smejuljenje (laugh, laughter)
or osmeh/ismevanje (smile, derision).
Have you noticed that Latvian smaids sounds almost the same as Serbian
smijati se (to laugh), but in Serbian final "se" is enclitic reflexive
pronoun (self, sich) - sebe (self), from seble - similar to German
selb- (I think it is sev (yourself. myself.../ in Latvian.
DV
Quote: (2) ''Zemlja' is not 'Slavic'.. If definitive anything, it's Baltic
(as far as IE is concerned). The root also appears in indo-iranian and
'dardic'.
(3) Latin 'cumulus' is not related to the above two roots. For an
contemporary cf see Baltic Latvian 'kamulis' - meaning 'ball' or 'ball
shaped'.
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/).
Sure... just as I quoted above.. But it has nothing to do with your
attempted conflation of disparate roots.
In case you are unable to grasp what I am talking here about, you
better "rest your case" and never change your mind again!
DV
It would be better that you advance your hor-gone theory with one root
at a time..
That way you wouldn't be as likely to trip over troublesome facts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Harlan Messinger |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
Quote: On Apr 29, 8:19 am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:58 am, Du¹an Vukotiæ <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> 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?
These each appear to have completely different origins.
(1)"same
The ancient man realized the human being as a sort of "cumulus".
And you know this from going back in time and speaking with them, right?
In fluent Gon-Bel-Hor?
Quote: Serbian osoba (person); na-seobina (settlment), selo (village) - from
na-he-ho-bli-na => na-se-o-bli-na => na-se-lje > selo; Serb. selo
(vallage) is in fact celina (whole) or gomila (heap), oblast (area;
cf. Greek basileion royal palace; Serb. vaseljena cosmos, world;
vaseljenski (worldwide; vaseljenski patriarh = patriarch basileus); =
basileus (king).
"In fact" = because you say so.
Quote: Compare Greek oikoumenê (inhabitance) and Eng.
inhabitance
What about them? Compare what?
Quote: What is the relation among the following words: Lat. humanus,
humatio, humus, humidus, humilitas and Serb. Serb. osoba (person),
zemlja (earth, soil), umiti (wash /the face/), umilan (sycophantic),
omiljen (favorit), militi (to creep)?
Probably none that relates all of them. If you think they are all
related, prove it.
Quote: Try to compare Lat. simulatus
and Sebian sumljati (suspect; sumnjati; smlata, zamlata, smotan /
inapt, awkward/); Eng. smile and Serb. smejati se (from smiliti se,
smejuljiti /to attract somone's attention/).
Forget "compare". Try to *prove*.
Quote: I know that a big part of the people on sci.lang (who are unfamiliar
not only with lnguistics but with other social sciences) are unable to
understand what I am talkig about.
The inability to understand is yours: you perpetually fail to understand
why your long lists of the words are inadequate to demonstrate any of
the relationships you claim. The irony is that you scold others as being
beholden to the traditional claims of linguistics instead of being open
to new ideas. Unfortunately, it's *your* approach that's the old one,
the simple "obvious" one that people were inclined to follow *before*
more sophisticated researchers discovered its shortcomings and realized
that more rigorous approaches to research were required. You continue
along in the stone age and yet you've fooled yourself into believing
that what you are doing is groundbreaking.
Quote: Therefore, let us concentrate on
the English words smile and smirk. According to the modern (P)IE-
experts both of these words originated from the PIE root *smei- and
according to my HSF Xur-Bel-Gon-um theory smile and smirk are the
derivateve of the two different basis: smile from Gon-bel-Gon and
smirk from Gon-Bel-Hor-Gon.
The modern PIE experts have better scientific methodology on their side,
hence they win over you in the persuasion department.
Quote: The two Serbian corresponding words to
English smile and smirk (OE smearcian) are smeh (smejuljenje;
smejuljiti => smejati se /to laugh/; Latv. smaids) and smejurija
(smejurenje).
Because you say so?
Quote: Modern lingua-scientist would also say that the above
two "smiling" words were derived from the suffixed forms *smile- and
*smeiro- not seeing that the root *smeiro- must be a double suffixed
*smei- (*smei-le-ro-).
(a) Perhaps they can't see it because it's a falsehood. (b) "Must
be"--because you say so?
[remaining tripe snipped] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 8 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:52 pm
|
|
