On Apr 22, 9:31 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

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

OK. Let's see where the English word "whole" came from? I hope you
know the etymology of that word. English whole is the cognate of the
Serbian/Slavic celo (whole), Greek όλος (all) and Latin solidus. The
common denominator for all these words is the ur-basis Gon-Bel-Gon
("round heap").

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 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.

On Apr 9, 12:45 pm, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz
wrote:

"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.

What about your intelligent wife who chose a monkey to be her low-fool
husband?
What price is she willing to pay to get properly laid?

DV

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:44 am, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:31 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

My brain is still waiting for you to provide something worth
comprehending: a proof.
OK. Let's see where the English word "whole" came from? I hope you
know the etymology of that word. English whole is the cognate of the
Serbian/Slavic celo (whole), Greek όλος (all) and Latin solidus. The
common denominator for all these words is the ur-basis Gon-Bel-Gon
("round heap").

Show that.

Demonstrate that the IE root underlying those words is derived from
Gon-Bel-Gon.

I've been following these exchanges with increasing puzzlement.
It seems to me that Duscian in earnest thinks that 'X is the cognate of
Y', 'common denominator for all these words is Z', and their like *are*
the demonstrations of something. He seems completely unaware of the
meaning of demonstration - that is, the reasoning which departs from
basic facts and uses implicature to establish others - and instead think
that 'demonstrate' means 'present some analogy of form'.
Bearing this in mind, it seems completely futile to try to reason with
him; he doesn't know how to parse counter-arguments.

On Apr 23, 4:44 am, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:31 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

My brain is still waiting for you to provide something worth
comprehending: a proof.
OK. Let's see where the English word "whole" came from? I hope you
know the etymology of that word. English whole is the cognate of the
Serbian/Slavic celo (whole), Greek όλος (all) and Latin solidus. The
common denominator for all these words is the ur-basis Gon-Bel-Gon
("round heap").

Show that.

Demonstrate that the IE root underlying those words is derived from
Gon-Bel-Gon.

On Apr 22, 9:31 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

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

OK. Let's see where the English word "whole" came from? I hope you
know the etymology of that word.

English whole is the cognate of the
Serbian/Slavic celo (whole),

Greek όλος (all) and Latin solidus.

The
common denominator for all these words is the ur-basis Gon-Bel-Gon
("round heap").

You have already learned that words heap, cumulus,
gomila, tumulus, tomb, humus, zemlja, compono, collect, imanje, home,
domaćin, dominus etc., originally sprang from the Gon-Bel-Gon ur-
syllabic combination.

Of course, the word "combine" also belong to the
same, above-mentioned group.

The Serbo-Slavic adverb 'okolo' (around, about) is the word that has
lost its initial velar/glottal k/h (from h/okolo)

and it shows that
this word is equal to Greek κ�κλος (circle; Lat. ciclus cycle).

Serbian okolo (Russ. около; Cz. okolo) is closely related to other
Serbian words - oblina (a curved area) and za-obljen (round, oval)

On
the other side, there is the Serbian noun 'okolina' (surrounding; from
h/okolina - Gon-Gon-Bel-Gon) that could be compared to Serb.
'oblast' (area, district; cf. Lat. plaga district; Russ. обла�т; Cz.
oblast).

We can see that the primeval Gon-Bel-Gon basis has been
subjected to many of phonetic and morpho-syntactic processes:
adaptation, erosion, fusion, elision, affixation, and permutation.

In this place, it would be interesting to mention the Hungarian word
'ablak', which means "window". Ablak sounds almost the same as Serbian
oblak (cloud). What happened here? Is it possible that these two words
are related? Is ablak (window) an original finno-ugric word? Or it
belongs to IE vocabulary, as a Slavic loanword? First, let us compare
Latin canalis (pipe, groove, channel; cf. Lat. canna reed) and Serbian
okno (window); in Serbian, 'okno' also means shaft or manhole, hole.
All the above words are telling us that Slavic okno (window; Skt.
j�laka) is a "hole" in the wall, earth, or in any other solid
structure.

Slovak language has the words oblok (window) and oblak (cloud) as well
as oblúk (arc; cf. Serb. luk /arc/; oluk /spout, waste-pipe, gutter/).
Now, if we compare Eng cave/cable with Serb. Å¡uplje/Å¡upljina (hollow;
cf. Lat. spelunca /cave/, Serb. Å¡pilja /cave/) we are going to see
that all these words are born from the Gon-Bel-Gon basis.

English
cable is closely related to canal (channel), hole, hallow and cave

(cf. Russ. глубина; Cz. hlubina deepness) and to cannabis (cf. Serb.
konop/ac rope; konoplja hemp; snoplje bundle; okupljati gather,
assemble; Lat. capio, occupo; Ger. nehmen /to take/; Serb. uzimanje /
taking/).

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

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.

Du¹an Vukotiæ 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.

On Apr 23, 11:41 am, Harlan Messinger



hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ 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.

Dušan Vukotić 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?

Dušan Vukotić wrote:

On Apr 22, 9:31 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

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

OK. Let's see where the English word "whole" came from? I hope you
know the etymology of that word.

I hope you know it, as opposed to making it up without proof. Let's see:

English whole is the cognate of the
Serbian/Slavic celo (whole),

Is it? Prove it.

Greek όλος (all) and Latin solidus.

Those seem plausible based on information I already have.

Greek όλος (all) and Latin solidus.
Those seem plausible based on information I already have.

It would be true that these two are cognate with each other
if he hadn't got the Greek wrong: it should have a rough
breathing, <hólos>.  They're not related to <whole>,
however.

[...]

Brian

My question is simple. There are three possibilities: 1) you can see
that zamelen and collect are related 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.

Explain why you believe that they are related.

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.

Greek ο�λω (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>.

On Apr 24, 2:56 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

Greek όλος (all) and Latin solidus.

Those seem plausible based on information I already have.

It would be true that these two are cognate with each other
if he hadn't got the Greek wrong: it should have a rough
breathing, <hólos>.  They're not related to <whole>,
however.

Rubbish!

Lat. sollus (whole) => salus (health);

Greek ο�λω (from όλοξ, όλος whole, entire, complete),

which means both whole and sound (ο�λε salutation "health
to thee");

Serb. celina (whole), celjenje (healing).
AS hálian (whole, heal, to get well); hǽlan (heal, make whole, cure,
make safe, save)

Whole => heal; health