http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/3ef86aa80f8002dc?

Lat. oxygala (sour milk) is phonetically very similar to the Serbian
word kiseljenje (acidification); according to the Xur-Bel-Gon theory
both of these words (oxygala, kiseljenje) are derived from the same
basis - Xur-Gon-Bel. It means that the earliest forms of kiselo (sour)
and oxygala could have sounded as xur-g-(b)-ljene and that both words
were also related to Latin sorbeo (to suck in, drink, swallow) as well
as Serbian Å¡ikljanje (gush).

In this case the two conspicuous phonetic laws are observable:
1. The elision of the sound -r- from the Xur-Gon-Bel basis.
2. A total assimilation of the sound -b- by the following -l-

Consequently, the English word cheese could be compared to the Serbian
adjective kiseo (sour), while English sour could be equated to Serbian
sir (cheese). We can see that the ur-syllable Xur has retained the
sound -r- in the words sir (cheese) and sour (Serb. sirenje curdle*).
There is a Serbian adjective sirov (rude, crude, raw), which is also
derived from the above-mentioned Xur-Gon-Bel basis (Serb. sirovina /
staple, raw material/).

It would be interesting to compare Serbian words sirovina (staple; Xur-
Gon-Bel-Gon) and the noun crpljenje (depletion) and verb crpeti (drain
the liquid from). These words are semantically clearly related to each-
other and they appeared to be akin to Latin exa-cerbo (to make worse;
cf. Serbian is-crpljen exhausted).

*English crude is related to Serbian gruda (clod, clot); cf. Serb. z-
gruda(v)ati (curdle). In addition, Serb. gruda is akin to English hard
and earth.

DV

Anyone - who believes that he can rebut the effectiveness of my Xur-
Bel-Gon theory - is welcome to try his skills!

On 2 апр, 22:30, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyone - who believes that he can rebut the effectiveness of my Xur-
Bel-Gon theory - is welcome to try his skills!

No objections? Thanks!

Dušan Vukotić skreiv:

On 2 апр, 22:30, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyone - who believes that he can rebut the effectiveness of my Xur-
Bel-Gon theory - is welcome to try his skills!

No objections? Thanks! :-)

Why should anyone have objections? Your examples show that you define
effectiveness as amount of output per invested effort. There's no doubt
that your theory is superior to traditional historical linguistics in
that regard.

The interesting question arises when the aspect of quality is added to
your calculations. Will anyone buy?

I suppose that if Dušan's avocation, instead of pretending to practice

Trond Engen wrote:
Dušan Vukotić skreiv:

On 2 апр, 22:30, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyone - who believes that he can rebut the effectiveness of my Xur-
Bel-Gon theory - is welcome to try his skills!

No objections? Thanks! :-)

Why should anyone have objections? Your examples show that you define
effectiveness as amount of output per invested effort. There's no doubt
that your theory is superior to traditional historical linguistics in
that regard.

The interesting question arises when the aspect of quality is added to
your calculations. Will anyone buy?

I suppose that if Dušan's avocation, instead of pretending to practice
historical linguistics, were cheesemaking, he'd get the local market to
stock batch after batch of the output of his various misbegotten
experiments, and would consider it a resounding endorsement the one time
shoppers merely left a batch to rot of its own accord rather than
ripping it off the shelf, trampling it while holding their noses, and
torching the place as they had done all the other times.

Dušan Vukotić skreiv:

On 2 апр, 22:30, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyone - who believes that he can rebut the effectiveness of my Xur-
Bel-Gon theory - is welcome to try his skills!

No objections? Thanks! :-)

Why should anyone have objections? Your examples show that you define
effectiveness as amount of output per invested effort. There's no doubt
that your theory is superior to traditional historical linguistics in
that regard.

The interesting question arises when the aspect of quality is added to
your calculations. Will anyone buy?

--
Trond Engen
- non-objective

Harlan Messinger wrote:

Trond Engen wrote:
Dušan Vukotić skreiv:

On 2 апр, 22:30, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyone - who believes that he can rebut the effectiveness of my Xur-
Bel-Gon theory - is welcome to try his skills!
No objections? Thanks!
Why should anyone have objections? Your examples show that you define
effectiveness as amount of output per invested effort. There's no doubt
that your theory is superior to traditional historical linguistics in
that regard.

The interesting question arises when the aspect of quality is added to
your calculations. Will anyone buy?

I suppose that if Dušan's avocation, instead of pretending to practice
historical linguistics, were cheesemaking, he'd get the local market to
stock batch after batch of the output of his various misbegotten
experiments, and would consider it a resounding endorsement the one time
shoppers merely left a batch to rot of its own accord rather than
ripping it off the shelf, trampling it while holding their noses, and
torching the place as they had done all the other times.

like this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu_marzu

Actually I didn't read his first post, and it was exactly that thought
that made me curious enough to read his second.

On 4 ��Ò, 09:18, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:

Actually I didn't read his first post, and it was exactly that thought
that made me curious enough to read his second.

Just curiosity! A typical monkey's reflection!

On 2 апр, 22:30, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:



http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/3ef86aa80f8002dc?

Lat. oxygala (sour milk) is phonetically very similar to the Serbian
word kiseljenje (acidification); according to the Xur-Bel-Gon theory
both of these words (oxygala, kiseljenje) are derived from the same
basis - Xur-Gon-Bel. It means that the earliest forms of kiselo (sour)
and oxygala could have sounded as xur-g-(b)-ljene and that both words
were also related to Latin sorbeo (to suck in, drink, swallow) as well
as Serbian Å¡ikljanje (gush).

In this case the two conspicuous phonetic laws are observable:
1. The elision of the sound -r- from the Xur-Gon-Bel basis.
2. A total assimilation of the sound -b- by the following -l-

Consequently, the English word cheese could be compared to the Serbian
adjective kiseo (sour), while English sour could be equated to Serbian
sir (cheese). We can see that the ur-syllable Xur has retained the
sound -r- in the words sir (cheese) and sour (Serb. sirenje curdle*).
There is a Serbian adjective sirov (rude, crude, raw), which is also
derived from the above-mentioned Xur-Gon-Bel basis (Serb. sirovina /
staple, raw material/).

It would be interesting to compare Serbian words sirovina (staple; Xur-
Gon-Bel-Gon) and the noun crpljenje (depletion) and verb crpeti (drain
the liquid from). These words are semantically clearly related to each-
other and they appeared to be akin to Latin exa-cerbo (to make worse;
cf. Serbian is-crpljen exhausted).

*English crude is related to Serbian gruda (clod, clot); cf. Serb. z-
gruda(v)ati (curdle). In addition, Serb. gruda is akin to English hard
and earth.

DV

Anyone - who believes that he can rebut the effectiveness of my Xur-
Bel-Gon theory - is welcome to try his skills!

No objections? Thanks!

As far as I can make out
from the authorities, sir really _is_ cognate with sour, and caseus is
from the same root as kiseo (though more closely related to "kvass").

On Apr 4, 12:11 pm, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4 ��Ò, 09:18, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:

Actually I didn't read his first post, and it was exactly that thought
that made me curious enough to read his second.

Just curiosity! A typical monkey's reflection!

Douchie, you are a very bad man. Good men would not call other people
monkeys.

Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On 4 апр, 02:17, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

As far as I can make out
from the authorities, sir really _is_ cognate with sour, and caseus is
from the same root as kiseo (though more closely related to "kvass").

What a pity Ross that you do not try to use your own brain instead of
consulting "authority" all the time.

This from the guy who is perpetually frustrated because no one will
consider him an authority.

On Apr 4, 2:25 am, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:

Dušan Vukotić skreiv:

On 2 апр, 22:30, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyone - who believes that he can rebut the effectiveness of my
Xur-Bel-Gon theory - is welcome to try his skills!

No objections? Thanks! :-)

Why should anyone have objections? Your examples show that you
define effectiveness as amount of output per invested effort.
There's no doubt that your theory is superior to traditional
historical linguistics in that regard.

The interesting question arises when the aspect of quality is added
to your calculations. Will anyone buy?

Hey, if (like me) you didn't read beyond the subject line, you might
have thought "Du$an finally scored 100%!".

As far as I can make out from the authorities, sir really _is_
cognate with sour, and caseus is from the same root as kiseo (though
more closely related to "kvass"). The good old stopped-clock
principle is still at work.

On Apr 4, 11:27 am, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Apr 4, 12:11 pm, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4 ��Ò, 09:18, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:

Actually I didn't read his first post, and it was exactly that thought
that made me curious enough to read his second.

Just curiosity! A typical monkey's reflection!

Douchie, you are a very bad man. Good men would not call other people
monkeys.

You are not a monkey - you are Hog Loony.

DV