Re: [tied] Was proto-romance a pidgin?

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Was proto-romance a pidgin?



> You know what? I said there are severals scholars which have an another opinion.And I quoted a name of one , telling I stil havent read what he wrote.

You took the name of Hugo Schuhardt in vain. I can well imagine you aren't familiar what he wrote, but since you aren't, what makes you think he would have supported any of your fantasies? Schuhardt's views about the origin of Romanian were quite orthodox.

> I am already sick of you allways hacking around me with "your inability", "your ignorance", etc etc etc. Do you mind is so hard to understand the given rules? Is not at all hard. If one does not agree with some of them in your opinion "is a ignorant".

The problem, Alex, is that the way you attempt to contest the rules presented to you demonstrates your imperfect understanding of them, and the fact that you keep rising questions exhaustively discussed just a few months ago makes one suspect that there may be something wrong either with your attention or your memory. Remember that many of your interlocutors have studied linguistics for real and are much more competent to discuss it sensibly than you are. Go think about that before you start another round of amateurish negationism. If your favourite pastime is flogging dead horses, don't expect our fellow Cybalisters to bear that patiently all the time. If proper discipline were to be maintained here, I'd have to reprimand any poster who says anything ad hominem to you to or to anyone else; on the other hand, I would have started moderating your messages a long while ago in the interest of the list. Think about that too.

Piotr