Re: Anser (was: swallow vs. nightingale)

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 50775
Date: 2007-12-09

Fournet:
 
If Kazimirski did not see fit to use actual, documented material to substantiate his proposed (imagined?) meanings (and, if he did/could not reference them as appears to be the case), your assertion of their meaning(s) is unconvincing unless you can find and documentarily reference from some other source (Wehr, perhaps) the meaning(s) [full] that you propose for them by generously giving Kazimirski the benefit of the doubt.
 
Patrick Ryan
 
***
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nightingale)

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 7:33 PM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nightingale)

Ryan wrote :
I must judge Kazimirski as a dubious reference
Patrick Ryan
============
A.F :
Ryan
You are making one more step out of science.
Kazimirski is not a "dubious reference" as you say
It is a well-known best-in-class.
Your inadequate comments show who you really are.
 
Arnaud Fournet
 
 
 
.