--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci" wrote:
> I am aware of the etymologies given by other scholars about these
> words, except the verb <bymoj> `to swell', so I will beg others to
> not lost much time about what the dominant opinion exists about
> certain etymologies, but how much is convinced certain etymology.
>
> *** I am repeating this message, with one new entry, because,
> according to M. Iacomi, if you are not heralded by so-called
> authorities, your claim is not true or is dubious. :))***
You may laugh, but you are asserting false ideas as being mine
and that's not nice at all. Especially when you have had the
clear explanation on the list (see message #31687 from which
I quote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> The evolution *peik^> Alb. pikë was exclusively your own proposal:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/21193
>> reiterated in:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/25917
>> (heralded by none) and has some semantic difficulties [...]
>
> [AK]
> Does it matter are you heralded or not by anyone,
It doesn't matter as long as you don't imply that your favorite
theory was accepted as logical result of debates on cybalist. Being
treated "in length" (actually mentioned in other contexts by others)
doesn't account for correctness of your guess.
-------------------------------------------------------)
I was specifically referring to your own message #31660 from
which I quote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how much these roots could be onomatopoeic or
expressive, but I know for sure that they have PIE form [...]
*peig^-/peik^- 'to cut, mark (by incision)'. [...] I remember
that this second root was treated in length in Cybalist [...]
-------------------------------------------------------
Your lines were implying that "for sure" the root *peig^/k^
was the PIE ancestor of some Albanian word and this was the
result of discussions on cybalist in which "this second root
was treated in length". I was not happy (for those "semantic
difficulties") with your too enthusiastic formula ("for sure")
and, OTOH, with suggetion that your theory's validity was the
natural result of lengthy discussions on the list, since it was
only one of your proposals to which nobody answered. The basic
idea is that {not having criticism} on some marginal topic is
not at all equivalent with {having agreement}, and within this
and only this context should my bracketed remark "(heralded by
none)" be interpreted: you did not get _approval_ but simply
_lack of reaction_ on the list.
So, you should have already understood that you were falsely
thinking at the idea "if you are not heralded by so-called
authorities, your claim is not true or is dubious" as being
mine. It is sad to see it re-emerging with the same false
label, even under the protection of a smiley. Feed back.
Regards,
Marius Iacomi