From: tgpedersen
Message: 58960
Date: 2008-06-01
>What are the charges, mr. Grand Inquisitor?
> At 5:51:55 AM on Sunday, June 1, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 4:40:57 AM on Saturday, May 31, 2008, tgpedersen
> >> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> It appears that you'd still rather rely on uninformed
> >> impressions and a very dated work than do any serious
> >> investigation.
>
> > I was relying on McBain's claiming those words occur in
> > Gaelic. Don't they any more?
>
> Playing the innocent again, I see.
> Very well, I'll spell it out for you: you give no evidence of beingI assumed that the letter 'p' stood for the phoneme 'p', since that
> qualified to comment on the quality of MacBain's etymologies,
> because you give no evidence of knowing much of anything about the
> language or its writing system.
> > And as to serious investigation: I present my half-bakedI don't think you can hold your own lethargy and inaction against me.
> > ides here on Cybalist, because I know people like you will
> > be much more motivated, thus more successful, in finding
> > counterarguments than I ever would.
>
> Not really. I rarely do more than glance at your posts
> before discarding them as more of the same old ... stuff.
> Occasionally something catches my eye, sometimes even when I
> have the time, interest, and knowledge to make some kind of
> response, and then I may amuse myself for a bit, but I
> certainly don't take it very seriously.
> >>> http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MB2/mb28.html#MB.PErh what? Was there something important I should have concluded from
> >>> http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MB2/mb29.html
> >>> http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MB2/mb30.html
> >>> which is odd, since Gaelic is a q-Celtic language.
>
> >>> Some of the frequent explanations from Latin are
> >>> undoubtedly correct, but you're struck by the tortuousness
> >>> of some of the derivations,
>
> >> No, *you* are.
>
> > Yes, and you are not. So?
>
> Occasionally he can be quite sensible, but you're struck by
> the effectiveness of Torsten's blinkers where his idées
> fixes are concerned.
> >>> both the semantic and the morphological ones ('formed from',It goes it least back to McBain's time, so that shouldn't stop you.
> >>> indeed),
>
> >> Your incredulity is misplaced. 'Formed from X' appears
> >> to be MacBain's abbreviation for 'adapted from X to
> >> Irish/Gaelic phonology', or at least to include that
> >> sense.
>
> > And in the rest of the cases you apparently don't know
> > know what to make of it either, but you'd rather die than
> > admit it.
>
> In fact the phrase 'formed from' appears exactly three times
> in the material in question. Twice it was used in
> unqualified assertions, and I addressed both of those. I
> did not bother with 'peilisteir -- a quoit, flat stone;
> formed from the stem peileir?', since MacBain was clearly
> just offering a conjecture.
>
> >> An example is the entry for <pàisd> 'a child':
>
> >> Irish páisde; formed from Middle English páge, boy,
> >> Scottish page, boy, now English page.
>
> >> In fact Middle English or Anglo-Norman <page>, /pa:dZ&/
> >> or the like, was borrowed into Irish as <páitse>,
> >> representing something like /pa:t^s^&/. Modern <páiste>
> >> 'a child' and Sc.Gael. <pàisde> ~ <pàiste> have
> >> metathesized the cluster.
>
> > Feilberg: Ordbog over det jyske Almuesmaal (1894 - 1904):
> > pajs "small child"
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30336
> > How do you explain that?
>
> Lacking any information on how far back it goes,
> and knowing rather less about Danish (let alone specificallyYou do know the story of the man who looked for his door key under the
> Jutlandic) historical phonology than I do about any of the other
> NGmc. varieties, I'm obviously in no position to do so. I would
> look first at the possibility of a French source.
> > Loan into Jysk from English or Gaelic or French? Loan fromOf course it is since there is a logical possibility that that
> > Jysk into English and Gaelic and French? AFAIK the French
> > 'page' doesn't have a proper derivation from Latin either.
> > And don't forget, it's a word in p-, so 'pajs' can't be a
> > Germanic word.
>
> I couldn't care less. The *only* issue that I'm addressing
> is your use of Gaelic words. This includes your notion that
> 'the equally frequent explanations from English are no
> really an explanation either since "true" Germanic words
> can't have p- either': a word that can be traced back to
> English or ON may be relevant to your substrate concerns,
> but its presence in Gaelic isn't, and you should be looking
> at the English or ON word instead.
> >> Derivation of EIr <páb(h)áil> 'pavement' (whence <páil>)Once again: what is it you know about Gaelic which I should know and
> >> and <páb(h)álta> 'paved' from English <pave> isn't quite
> >> so clearcut, but it is in fact quite plausible, and if
> >> you don't know why, you're not in a position to be
> >> skeptical.
>
> > Hahaha. You made my day.
> > You don't know how, so I'm not in a position to be
> > skeptical?
>
> Read it again. I *do* know how; I merely recognize that it
> isn't quite so straightforward and therefore is less
> certain. And no, I'm not going to tell you. If you want to
> play with Irish and Gaelic, you can damn' well learn
> something about them.
> > Try this one in stead:Circular. Note the Breton 'Pafalek ou Pavalek'. There's your missing
> > http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/07pauw-treten.html
>
> Why? It's completely irrelevant to the Gaelic words.