From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 31812
Date: 2004-04-09
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci" wrote:to
>
> > I am aware of the etymologies given by other scholars about these
> > words, except the verb <bymoj> `to swell', so I will beg others
> > not lost much time about what the dominant opinion exists aboutproposal:
> > 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
> >> 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