From: Rick McCallister
Message: 62970
Date: 2009-02-10
--- On Tue, 2/10/09, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
> From: Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud@...>
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Kuhn's ar-/ur-language
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 3:29 PM
> > I have the first edition printed in October 1931 in
> Chartres, rue Fulbert
> > par l'Imprimerie Durand.
> > In-8, pleine percaline, XIX-1108 pages.
> > What else do you need to know ?
> >
> > You have made me check that page already so many times
> it's wearing faster
> > than the others.
> >
> > Arnaud
> >
>
> I supposed you were more intelligent, Arnaud. You owe me an
> appology for
> trying to beat me with an errata in an old edition of
> Ernout-Meillet.
> Latin mi:luus has a LONG i: in every Latin dictionary.
>
> ============
>
> M. Octavia Alexander,
>
> I don't owe you anything, least of all an appology
> (sic) with two p's.
> I'm not trying to beat you, you are damn wrong from the
> start.
> As far as I remember, this must be the third or fourth time
> you bring that
> issue of Milvus having a long i: on discussion in Nostratic
> or Cybalist.
> So I think the situation has to be clarified once and for
> good.
> First, You claim I'm lying or having a bad sight.
> Both of them wrong,
> and both of them off topic and ad-hominem.
> Now you claimed once again that milvus does not have a long
> i: in any Latin
> dictionary,
> a stupid claim that is provably wrong,
> I was kind enough to give you the right references.
> But it does not work.
> So,
> As the risk of being either moderated or thrown out,
> let us put it straight and clear,
>
> You are wrong,
> and you are stupid
> and you are just a little overweening piece of stubborn
> shit.
> I guess this fact is well-known enough to protect me from
> too much
> moderational wrath.
>
> Am I clear enough with that idiotic issue about milvus ?
>
> Cornuto di merda !
>
> My apologies (with one p !) to the other listees.
>
> Arnaud