Re: Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

----- Original Message -----

From: george knysh

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 3:34 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

A plea to whoever moderates the list.
Could you request that these interlocutors cut down
with the annoying ad hominems? Or ban them? Why should
we be subjected to the slew of insults they keep
throwing at each other? Eliminate these and there will
be a marked improvement in bandwidth economy as well.
How about it, Piotr, Richard, etc..? Here is a
relevancy example. First their uncensored flapjawing,
then the economized version...
--- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@ msn.com> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> fournet.arnaud< mailto:fournet.arnaud@ wanadoo.fr>
> To:
>
cybalist@... s.com<mailto:cybalist@... s.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@ msn.com>
> To:
>
cybalist@... s.com<mailto:cybalist@... s.com>
>
> 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
>
> ***
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *
A.F
> 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
***
>
> 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.

A.F
> Dear P.R.,
> Arabic has a large array of prefixes,
infixes
> 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
>
> ***

>

>
>

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo. com/r/hs