From: george knysh
Message: 50648
Date: 2007-12-01
>cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> fournet.arnaud<mailto:fournet.arnaud@...>
> To:
>
>cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow
> vs. nighingale)
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick
> Ryan<mailto:proto-language@...>
> To:
>
>****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:53 PM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: [tied]
> Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> =========
> A.F
> Dear 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.F
> Dear 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 something
> before 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.F
> Dear Pinocchio,
> PIE *pneu is an infixed variant of *p_H1 root,
> as evidenced by Hebrew and Arabic n_p_H / n_f_H
> which 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
>
> ***
> Dear P.R.,==============
> I disagree.
> There are super-cognate roots present in Khoisan
> with the structure CvC,
> and CvC-vC.
> Please look at Khoisan a little bit closer.
>***
> ***
> Dear A.F.,
>
> Propose a few KhoiSan cognates .
> Patrick Ryan
>A.F
> 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 unconvincing. The PAA
> biliteral roots that developed into triliteral roots
> did not do so by prefixing H but rather by
> suffixation and gemination.
> Dear P.R.,infixes
> Arabic has a large array of prefixes,
> and suffixes.===============
> See Kazimirski or Lisan .
>=======
> ***
>
> Dear A.F.:
>
> One needs to 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
> 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.F____________________________________________________________________________________
> Dear P.R.,
> PIE *pneu is an infixed variant of *p_H1 root,
> as evidenced by Hebrew and Arabic n_p_H / n_f_H
> which have infix n- treated as a prefix, instead
> of an infix.
> this invalidates 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.
> >
> ***
>
> Dear A.F.:
>
> Infix treated as a prefix?
>
> Not possible.
> Patrick Ryan
>
> ***
>
>
>