From: Patrick Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE word for "people"
> At 11:35:53 PM on Saturday, September 24, 2005, Patrick Ryan
> > From: "Grzegorz Jagodzinski" <grzegorj2000@...>
> >> Patrick Ryan wrote:
> >>> For PIE, we would reconstruct *ro:m-, seen in Latin
> >>> Ro:ma: and Gypsy rom, 'man'; Old Indian ra:ma-, 'name of
> >>> people'
> >> Extremally doubtful, I would even say that it is a vulgar
> >> etymology.
> > Learn how to spell then we will consider all claims of
> > vulgarity, including whether you are displaying
> > _extremally_(sic!) vulgar rudeness.
> Even if you were as competent in Polish as Grzegorz is in
> English, this would be uncalled for, especially since it's
> quite possible that he is using 'vulgar' as in 'Vulgar
> Latin' and simply means a popular or folk etymology.
> >> 2) Are there towns or villages called just "people"? I am
> >> just curious because it seems highly improbable.
> > It is common all over the world for tribal names to be
> > simply '(hu)men' in the language of the designators. If
> > you do not know that already, you should excuse yourself
> > from the discussion, and do some serious reading. "Bridge"
> > or "ford" as a tribal name sounds idiotic to me.
> Indeed. But Grzegorz is talking about names of towns and
> villages, not tribal names.
> >> 4) I have not found **ra:ma- 'name of people' - if
> >> anybody has found, please cite the source. All I have
> >> been able to find is ra:ma- 'dark, black, pleasant,
> >> beautiful', also 'kind of deer' and nomen proprium Ra:ma
> > Try Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Sir Monier
> > Monier-Williams, p. 877: "pl. N. of a people".
> Available in scanned images at
> <http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/ebooks/mw/> and in
> searchable Unicode at
> <students.washington.edu/prem/mw/mw.html>, among other
> > Go back whence you came and where you did not learn
> > English, and add better manners to your course of study.
> Speaking as a moderator, I recommend that you take that
> second directive to heart. Soon. It is possible to
> express disagreement without larding it with gratuitous
Then you should resign as a moderator.
_You_ called my remarks "oafishness" because I could not agree that belief
without data was useless. Why do you not moderate yourself?
My hearing was characterized as a 'tin ear'. Where were you then with your
moderation. You kept insisting what you believed was "obvious" as if I was a
deaf-dumb-mute who simply could not perceive your revealed truths.
Glen regularly insults me with every name under the sun. I have not seen an
admonition from you to him.
"Vulgar", as far as I am concerned, is a serious insult. And to put it in
terms of "vulgar" Latin only means to connect it to Pöbel. Do you think I am
My remarks were not gratuitous. They were keenly deserved.
After showing his ignorance of spelling, G. continued to show his ignorance
by questioning facts that were readily available for confirmation, and
thereby questioning my integrity. Where was your moderation then?
If you will not moderate those who slight me but you are only too willing to
moderate when I defend myself, you are not fit to be a moderator.
I was one of the original members of the list from which this list inherited
its core membership.
I got along fine with Cyril. Too bad he is not still active. I cannot
believe he would be as one-sided as you seem to be.