m_iacomi wrote:
> Your convictions are of no special interest. Summing up, in the
> dictionary you find:
> 1. "huscã", plural "huSti" < Ukr. "huska" (`salt`)
> 2. "huSte" (only plural) < Ukr. "husca" (`husk`)
> 3. "huSti" (interjection)
> You started the debate with "huSti" and Ukrainian "huska", that
> is you could heve referred _only_ to 1. It is obvious that you
> took
> "huska" not from your mind but from the DEX at the first entry.
> The rest is you not being able to cope properly with
> dictionnaries.
> Still no surprise.
> Marius Iacomi
I have a lot of words on my tongue which I prefer to let them there
where they are instead of writting them down . How can one say
"obviously not from your mind but from DEX" from entry 1 when the entry
1 is speaking about "salt"? When I pointed to Piotr that:"it won't
explain Ukarinian "hoska" and Romanian "huSti", I used the word as I
know it ( you said by yourself in DEX is no "huSti" but "huSte") so how
I learned it from my mother; the only mistake I made was the Ukrainiean
word which I wrote "hoska" instead of "husca".
You know what? I guess Piotr is right. It doesn't make any sense to
continue this topic; at least not in this manner. Instead of coming with
ideas about the origin of the words you are just making your usualy
comentars about how one spels out, how one presents an idea, how one has
to do something. Your old habbit of criticising the presentation instead
of taking a look at what is inside of this presentation and everything
which does not fit in your Latin > Romanian is of no interest and has
nothing to say, being marginal, wihtout power of proof and so on. Your
folk has a proverb for something like this, the one with the horse and
its blinker.
Regards,
Alex