----- Original Message -----From: fournet.arnaudSent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:27 PMSubject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)
----- Original Message -----From: Patrick RyanSent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:53 PMSubject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)
<snip>=========A.FDear Pinocchio,I disagree with that kind of unprovable unfalsifiable flapdoodle.Please avoid using "we" when you speak about your own little person.There are super-cognate roots present in Khoisan with the structure CvC,and CvC-vC.Please look at Khoisan a little bit closer,before I humiliate you once again with rock-solid data.============ ==***Dear Lampwick:Propose a few KhoiSan cognates then so we can have a good laugh.Patrick Ryan***With PAA (especially Semitic) and PIE, which were in contact, we might be able to find a few *CVCC correspondences but supposing that "Hafil" corresponds to PIE *pleH- is amateurish. The PAA biliteral roots that developed into triliteral roots did not do so by prefixing H but rather by suffixation and gemination. If you do not (apparently) know this, you should read up on the subject before recklessly tossing out obvious nonsensicalities.=========A.FDear Pinocchio,If you had any idea what PAA and Semitic were about,I think you would avoid making a fool of yourself,uttering that kind of over-assertive and absurd comments.Arabic has a large array of prefixes, infixes and suffixes.Get yourself Kazimirski or Lisan and you will know.Keep on reading and try to understand somethingbefore you proclaim yourself an expert.============ ===***Dear Lampwick:What a shame you cannot distinguish between grammar and Semitic root formation!Patrick Ryan***As it happens, there is an Arabic word which in one of its stem forms _may_ possibly be compared with PIE *pleH-, namely ?aflaHa, 'prosperous' /fala:H-un, 'prosperity' , by way of 'provided with abundance/fullness' . The root here, for your instruction, is f-l-H.There is no "H1" in Egyptian, hieroglyphic or otherwise. In any case, if there were really an Egyptian cognate of *pel(H)-, it would appear in Egyptian as *fn(j). There is, in fact, a cognate with the root of PIE *pne-u-: fn, 'pant, be weak'; and fnD, 'nose'.=======A.FDear Pinocchio,PIE *pneu is an infixed variant of *p_H1 root,as evidenced by Hebrew and Arabic n_p_H / n_f_Hwhich have infix n- treated as a prefix, instead of an infix.this makes shreds with your comparison between *pnew and Egyptian fn.The root in *pnew is *p_H1.Note that Basque is buh-atu from the same root p_H1 with no affix at all.This root *p_H also exists in Uralic and Amerind Salish, etc.I am afraid you overlooked something...I dare say this is becoming habitual.Please do something about this predicament of yours.***Dear Lampwick:Infix treated as a prefix?Honi soit qui bon y pense.Patrick Ryan***<snip>
.