--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
> m_iacomi wrote:
>
>> Neither is "huSti" = "huSte", nor "huska" = "husca". So you
>> had two misspellings, both pointing towards another word (for a
>> coincidence that's somehow too much...), but you dare to rise
>> your voice as if I would have been the miserable guilty for
your
>> dyslexia. That's not at all decent from your part.
>
> 1) I dislike when persons cannot say "I made a confusion , a
> mistake, sorry".
Then you could understand why I am unhappy with your unrecognized
mistakes. Over two messages, you asked for a different word and
about its' Ukrainian counterpart which could be assigned _only_
to "huska" > "huscã" -> pl. "huSti". In your last message you did
make another check and -- surprise-surprise! -- you changed the
word with another, with a different spelling for its' Ukrainian
etymon "husca" > "huSte" (still a plural form). Well, due to your
further lack of common sense, I will point out that you writing
"huska" in the first message was not a spelling error but resulted
from _your_ confusion. You checked in the dictionary your word,
not being fully aware on its' spelling, thus supposing it has to
be "huSti". You saw "huSti" by chance as plural form of "huscã",
but the only definition given there was not in agreement with the
meaning you wanted. You thought it was (of course...) an error of
the guys having made the dictionary and you knew better that the
plural had to have also your meaning. You saw there its purposed
etymology, "huska", and you mentioned it along with the mistaken
word. There is no other explanation for your "huska", since from
K to C there _is_ some distance on common keyboards: it couldn't
be a symple typo.
It's only after I pointed out that "huscã" [the only word which
could have been linked with what you actually wrote] is unrelated
to "husk", that you paid another look in the DEX, this time more
carefully. Thus you discovered the correct spelling of the word
you had in mind ("huSte"). Instead of saying "ok, I'm sorry, I
made a confusion indicating you a different term along with its'
different etymology, here is what I wanted to say", you dared to
blame me for not having guessed from the very beginning what you
had in mind and you were unable to write down properly. You also
kept silent over the "Reg." indication that the word was regional:
<Do you indeed know what means "huSti" and "boascã"? [...] Do you
know at all what is "boascã"? This one is indeed a regionalism and
it is not in DEX to find.> ... unlike the other word which should
not be a regionalism according to your logic. Well, even if a term
is found in the dictionary, that doesn't prevent it from being
regional. 'Nuff said.
> It seems you cannot do it. Instead of this you are trying to
> show it was just a confusion ( for you!!) because of my
dyslexia.
I was too kind with you. When you write down terms, you have to
use the recommended dictionary variant and not some spurious local
variants of them. If you don't find it, you should mention you're
not sure on the spelling.
> And now you are making again a deliberated (?) confusion between
> interjection "huSti" and huSte/huSti?
I pointed out that "huSti" means something else than you claim.
There is no confusion from my part. There is no "huSte/huSti" in
the dictionary thus you should not refer to it.
> I don't know what to say, you have my word here.
Hardly a surprise.
> If you will try to mean there is "huSte" and not "huSti" that
> means you are just using the gramatical academical rules
> established by a corpus of shcolars.
You know, when discussing linguistics, the rules of those
scholars
should be obeyed. If you want to write down some note for your
sister or cousin, feel free to use any spelling you have in mind,
proven they understand you.
Marius Iacomi