Re: Sard

From: tgpedersen
Message: 51710
Date: 2008-01-21

> >
> > > > > Compare
> > > > > PIE *seH1- "seed, sow"
> > > > > Tchadic HAusa : shu:kâ "seed" < *soH1-ka
> > > > Proto-root *s_H1 "to sow, to disperse".
> > > Data :
> > > PIE : *s_h1-
> > > Hausa : sh_H-k
> > > Vocalic scheme in Hausa : like : tomâ
> > > as in ruwa "water" < *r_w "to flow".
> >
> > ========
> >
> > I can't see that it follows that they are not later
> > loans, as you claim.
> > Torsten
> > ======
> > I see what you mean :
> > This root is a Vasconico-atlasian substrate word.
> > It was borrowed by PIE and a Touareg Non Governmental Org
> > brought it to Hausa on Camel backs kindly provided by M. Kuhn
> > Foundation.
> Are you saying that the Hausa had no agriculture?
> Torsten
> Mr Pedersen,
> To be frank,
> I am quite fed up with your general approach.

You realized that the Hausa "seed" word might have been borrowed with
agriculture, so that your argument didn't hold, and then you opted for
the personal attack instead?

> You are always indulging in un-proved mysterious substrate
> inventions, most of which are highly self-contradictory in the first
> place,


> like claiming that Central-Europe is "vasconic"
?? When did I claim that Central Europe "is Vasconic"?

> then "probably Celtic"
?? When did I claim that Central Europe is "probably Celtic"?

then "why not whatnot, including PIE",
?? What are you referring to here?

> You are always dodging questions,
> and answering a clear question with a mountain
> of un-sorted ruhlenesque "data" that neither prove nor mean nothing,


> Hundreds of words mitch-matched together in the worst bedlam,
> drowning a clear issue into an ocean of nothingness,


> You are always claiming answers are not answers,
> although I have been very clear
What's bugging you? Is it the fact that I had to ask you several times
for an answer to a simple question?

> You are always distorting answers beyond any limit,

> You have been making absurd claims
> like "Boulogne's area was Dutch-speaking"
No, I said that if the French hadn't conquered it, it would have been
Dutch-speaking today.

> something that contradicts every single bit of information
> we have on this area.

I think the information leads one to think that at any time after
Celtic disappeared there were two languages, Old French and a Germanic
dialect (arguably three with Latin as a written language) and that no
one saw the few differences between what your tourist brochure called
'Old Saxon' and Old Dutch as defining separate languages.

> I consider this assertion has been made shreds.

There was no such assertion. And Boulogne is within the area that ws
once Germanic-speaking.

> You have proved **wrong** in the clearest way,
> but you still pop up with absurd questions and mails,
> that are meaningless and off the point.

Such as?

> In fact, some other people on the forum are nearly honest and
> sympathetic, like My best pet M. P.R,

I am sure your best pet Patrick Ryan will be happy to hear that you
consider him to be nearly honest.

> when compared with your general approach which is an obnoxious
> compound of inventions, forgeries, denials of data, dreamish
> absurdities, substrate obsessions,

I could also entertain cybalist by repeating my appreciation of you.
Unfortunately Piotr and Richard have in writing forbidden me to do so.

> and I probably lack words to make an exhaustive description
> of your mails.

You can do it in French, Capt. Haddock; I can read it.