Re: dhuga:ter

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re:Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
> >
> > ===============
> >
> > I think the ultimate root is *dz_b
>
> ***
> Do you have any data to support this form of a reconstruction?
> Patrick
> ***
>
> Correspondances are like this :
> *ts Egyptian sh = PIE *s (Salish ts?)
> *s Egyptian s = PIE *s (Salish s)
> *dz Egyptian z = PIE West *H2 East *y (Salish ts)
> *z Egyptian &ayin = PIE West *H2 East *y (Salish s)
>
> The Root is actually *ts_dz_b
> for PAA and PIE
> Which I previously wrote *s_z_b
> in order to avoid too many questions,
> but as you jump into the topic,
> I state that what I previously wrote *s_z_b
> was meant as a superficial reconstruction
> of my real point of view : *ts_dz_b.
> Accounting for Egyptian *s_z_b
> and PIE *s_z_w.

***

Now please listen. I am going to tell you something valuable.

1) citing "correspondences" as you did above is _not_ providing data;

you need to present several examples of these relationships, or refer to
another source where they are systematically listed if you wish to
abstract the conclusions from the data;

2) going about it in a non-disciplined way results in faux pas like
suggesting <szb> in one post, then <ts-dz-b> in the next.

You must prove it to _yourself_ before you attempt to prove it to other
people.

I would eschew superficiality.


***
>
> I suppose you will be clarinetting and trompetting
> I am incoherent.
> I'm not. I'm just adjusting my mails
> to your level of understanding.
>
> Arnaud
> ===========

***

Insults may boost your ego but they do nothing to strengthen your case.

***


> ***
>
> > H1 is a continuous present aspect morpheme.
> > It may or it may not have been added to *s_z_w- in PIE
> > It depends if you believe in Hirt's law hard enough.
> > I'm neutral about Miguel's explanation.
> > It may or may not be true, why not.
> > Uralic words may not be from *s_z_w_H1
> > but from the other root : sneH-
> > It also makes sense.
> >
> > Arnaud
> >
> > ==============
>
> ***
> Our most ancient language did _not_ have tenses. Time was indicated only
> adverbially.
>
> ===========
> I disagree.
>
> Arnaud
> =============

***

Voulez-vous coucher avec moi - is timeless until we add

ce soir.


Patrick

***