Re: [tied] Religious terms , here saint

02-07-03 20:22, alex wrote:

> The next one is I did not took into consideration in Avestan words which
> derives from kWe as "*kWek" > "kas"; "*kWe" > "sa" ; "*kWel" > "selem".

[Sigh.] Alex, *kWe- yields Av. c^a-. Again, it's practically impossible
to guess what you might mean. Avestan has no "selem" (it has no /l/ to
begin with).

> I just took the words which have been rendered as "*k^we-" there where I
> found them. If these roots are not given corectly, I agree, I should
> have had to verify them in a second source before posting it, thing
> which I didn't and you can accuse me for it.

It's more a question of your misreading thins, not of Pokorny's giving
the wrong forms. By the way, there are also instances of *-k^w- > Av.
-sp- word-medially, as in *h1ek^wo- > aspa- 'horse'.

> The next one is that I did not contradicted you, I just showed some data
> which you mean they are wrong.If you see it as contradiction, the let it
> be your way to interprete this.

It's no shame to say, "All right, I stand corrected" and accept
criticism gracefully. It's silly to say "OK, then have it your way, and
let me have it my way." What you said about the reflexes of *k^w in
Avestan was wrong. FULL STOP. It's a demonstrable (and already
demonstrated) fact, not a matter Miguel's interpretation.

>
> The next one is that with this kind of answers one goes away from the
> discussion but it let the discussion become again a personaly polemic
> which I don't intend to take part of it.
>
> The next one is that I don't care if the rom. "sfânt" is a loan from
> Slavic or not. I care about the semantic shift from a religious therm
> which meant just _holy_ in something like "sunset" which is unexplanable
> via Slavic "holy".
>
> The last one is that I have no pleasure to answer in the same manner to
> all the insinuations you make as usual falling in your old habbit of
> attacking the person. If I will intend to do it, it won't be directed to
> you but - as in our part of Romance usualy is, of course because of the
> Slavic influence, isn't it? - my words will be automaticaly directed to
> the one who gives birth to such people and usualy these women are not
> guilty for the acts of their offsprings. I hope I won't reach that
> point.

I don't see Miguel's comment as an ad hominem attack. He first addressed
the topic, giving you good, reliable information. Then he pointed out
all the errors you had committed -- and there was quite a few of them,
all revealing your incompetence in handling linguistic evidence.
Finally, he got testy -- perhaps unnecessarily testy, but I wouldn't say
you'd given him no cause for annoyance. Understanding the extent of
one's own ignorance is the first step towards learning anything. If you
make a bold assertion based on a cursory and amateurishly inept survey
of the index to Pokorny's dictionary, you're almost sure to be wrong and
to provoke those who are better informed.

I hope your final remarks can be mercifully construed as a miscarried
attempt at being witty. The less said about it, the better.

Piotr