Re: Fw: [tied] Rayim

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fw: [tied] Rayim


>
> From: Patrick Ryan
>
> Arnaud is quite the joker.
>
> First he asks me to "prove" my equivalences; then he refuses to look at
> the
> material that might.
>
> Are you afraid that new information might injure your mind?
>
> Patrick
> ==========
> I'm afraid
> we have little in common
> when it comes to methods, proofs and data.

***

And I thank God for that.


***


> You want me to swallow
> that in view of the premiss
> that Proto-X had
> mono-syllabic roots,
> the root *ra "tree"
> surfaces as *rabh "vaulted" in PIE.

***

For whom are we "simplifying" *rebh-?

***

>
> The problem is I see no *information*

***

Because you seem to be reading nothing but your own tea-leaves.

***

> The premiss about mono-syllabic roots
> is unproved by you
> (and I think it's wrong).
> Now you haven't proved
> the root *ra "tree" exists.
> and the semantic connection between
> *ra "tree" > *rebh "vaulted" is strained
> beyond any limits of credibility.

***

How would you know?

You did not read the material.

***

> If you believe that *rabh proves *ra
> proves mono-syllabism,
> then I don't know what to say.
> We will probably disagree many more times.
>
> Arnaud
> =======================

*rebh- proves monosyllabism? No, though that sort of reminds me of your
brand of logic.


Patrick