Re: [tied] Slavic "o"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

> m_iacomi wrote:
>
>> [...] But up till now, you just produced another wordlist,
>> failing to make any reasonable support to your alleged link
>> between Slavic terms and Balkan languages. This is far from
>> being a decent standard. Either you come up with clear
>> linguistical data, or find another subject.
>
> I know what one expects. Please consider as follow:
> - I showed the words which are considered of Slavic origin, words
> which belong [begin] with "o". I compiled the list and I put the
> the Slavic word wherefrom the Rom. one should derive
> - I made an another list with the words I consider to be interesting
> from my point of view, translating them in English.
> - I intend to verify the words are interesting to me presenting my
> opinion about them.

So you are considering some words interesting but you didn't
actually verify they're interesting. How interesting...

> Ergo, I did came with clear linguistical data

No. This is not linguistical data, this is a list of words or, if
you prefer, "linguistical material". It becomes data only if some
meaning is attributed to it. Up till now, it's just a list of terms
you find "interesting" without any prior check.

> but I did not presented any linguistic opinion about them.

So why on earth you've posted that list? just to tell everybody
on cybalist that you've brilliantly compiled a list of interesting
words? what do you really expect from people reading your message?!

> Thing which I intend to do .

The right procedure would be eventually to post not a long list
but words analysed and with some arguments to sustain your claims.
And not in an unique long message but word by word.

Have fun,
Marius Iacomi