Re: [tied] Re: semantic shift

From: alex_lycos
Message: 20549
Date: 2003-03-30

----- Original Message -----
From: "tolgs001" <gs001ns@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 11:43 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: semantic shift


altamix wrote:


>There is _no inherited_ variant there. Hör auf bitte!

It's high time you once and for good realized that you
are by no means in a position of saying "no" and
"hör bitte auf!", let alone of rejecting (based on what?)
conclusions by generations of genuine scientific
researchers (both in Romania and abroad).

George

What you don't say. I am pretty tired about these researchers which
explain 'merge' trough 'submerge' and 'întuneca' = to become dark,
trough "cover with a mantle " just to give one, two examples. Are you
able to tell which was the word for 'even' before this supposed semantic
shift? If not, do not negate just for sake of polemic and let it open
until something better will be found. You ask why I reject it. I reject
it because of the semantism. You don't say why you accept it. Why?
Because there exist Latin clarus? OK, I accept there is somewhere chiar=
clear; but this one doesn't has anything to do with 'chiar'= even in the
same way as pãr= hair and pãr= pear-tree are too not related to each
other. Alles klar?