--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "David Russell Watson" wrote:
> > >
> > > I cannot think that anyone could interpret the name as 'friend'.
> >
> > It's not an interpretation; it's the primary meaning of
> > the word in Sanskrit and Vedic. Have you done no study
> > at all of Sanskrit, Patrick?
>
> Ah, more attempts to goad me into a hasty comment, just as
> you threatened to do in your private communications before
> you resumed participation in the list.
I didn't threaten to goad you into a hasty comment, I told
you that I was going to do something about your abuse of
the list, and I am. I'm going to call you on every one of
your bluffs, note and draw the attention of the list to
every one of your nasty and insulting remarks, and I will
publicly dissect and expose each and every one of your
irrational claims. I am also going to see to it that the
game you and Arnaud play of presenting imaginary Nostratic
constructions into argument about Indo-European comes to
a _complete_ end.
If you have some sort of ugliness just beneath the surface
and ready to erupt, as you seem to be implying, then I'd
say that's a problem of _yours_, not a fault of mine. I can
never possibly bring something out of you that's not already
there, can I?
It's also amazing that you can complain about a comment so
mild as mine quoted above as "goading" when you engage in
real and truly nasty goading on nearly a daily basis. In
case you've forgot, you once told this list that I was of
low breeding, and that I got my family name from a garbage
can.
> I still have copies of those threat-letters.
I have copies too, and would have no problem with the list
seeing all of them, yours and mine both, Patrick. Can you
say the same? ;^)
> Some simpletons cannot understand the difference between
> allies and friends.
Which simpletons would that be? You're not trying to goad
anybody, are you? :^)
> Friend is based on affection; an ally is based on mutual
> obligations - exactly the sense of *mei-.
>
> I do not claim any expert knowledge of Sanskrit, David, but
> I do claim to understand ancient religion better than you
> ever will
Claim away. It becomes clearer by the day how little is
actually behind your claims.
> or you would not hate the Mormons so muc, as you explained to
> me you did.
I have all the letters before me right now, and the claim
that I hate Mormons appears nowhere in any of them.
I do believe their religion is morally and intellectually
defective, but then I have no problem at all with anybody
knowing that.
> I also claim to understand PIE better than you because I know
> that the _u_ in Varuna NEEDS to be explained, and my proposal,
> *wer-u-, explains it while yours does not.
Well then you don't understand PIE as well as you think,
for there's not a thing wrong with *wer-una- from the
well attested Vedic root vr- and the well attested Vedic
suffix -una-.
You never did consult the online Sanskrit dictionary, did
you?
> Explain it for us now, will you not?
The need for some special explanation is a delusion of
your own mind alone, so how am I supposed to know what
it is you don't understand about it. I'll repeat what
I've already told you, if it makes you feel any better,
which is that 'u' is no more than the first segment of
the well attested Indo-Aryan suffix '-una-'.
> Or ignore the question for the fourth time and prove me right.
There is no fourth time. The first time you asked was
in a post responding to Francesco, which I did no more
than skim and thus missed, and the second time when you
asked me directly, in a reply to one of my own messages,
I did reply immediately. Surely you've located it and
read it by now?!
> > Use the engine at http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/ to
> > search for the string 'mitra', making sure to remove the
> > quotes and to select 'prefix' from the drop-down menu on
> > the right. Besides 'mitra-' itself look at the numerous
> > compounds built upon it and listed there too.
> >
> > Let us know what you find. :^)
>
> I am certain with what I have read here, that I understand
> the semantics of *wer-u- better than you do.
What is this supposed to mean? Are you hoping that such
a cryptic reply will impress some of the fuzzy thinkers
haunting the list? The page I directed you to is loaded
with words ending in the suffix -una-, the existence and
commonality of which suffix is all that it was supposed
to prove. Are you saying that there is no such suffix?
Actually, I've suspected for some time, due to a number
of such odd responses from yourself over the years when
directed to online sources or files in cybalist's files
section, that for some reason you aren't able to access
them and are embarrassed to admit it.
If this isn't the case then please copy a few lines of
the page of the dictionary to which I directed you and
paste them in a reply, to prove to us that you are able.
> > Friendship is a form of reciprocating relationship, is it
> > not?
>
> For most people but perhaps not for someone like you.
What sort of person is that? I'm beloved by my friends.
> I know what I am sure of, David. You intend to provoke me with
> your insults until I tell you what I really think - just as you
> threatened to do.
What insults? While you have used been using insulting
and snide language almost everyday for months now with
almost everybody on the list who responds to you, I have
used not a single one. Expressing the truth is never
libelous, even when those truths are unpleasant _to_ you,
Patrick, or are unpleasant truths _about_ you.
> One expects a privy to stink.
Yes, but that is precisely why I rejoined cybalist: to
try to drive some of that stench away.
David