From: Torsten
Message: 65912
Date: 2010-03-03
>I have no idea what you are talking about. Would you be so kind as to specify what you mean by your terms '-k set', '-mp set' and 'swamp set', then I'll see if I can answer your criticism?
> At 3:32:08 AM on Tuesday, March 2, 2010, Torsten wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@>
> > wrote:
>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@ wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>>> The -k set is limited to "suck", and the -mp set is
> >>>> limited to "swamp". There's no overlap between these
> >>>> and I see no grounds to connect them.
>
> >>> My grounds for combining the 'labial series' and the
> >>> 'velar series' is that I claim the root they descend
> >>> from is from the combined ar-/ur- and geminate language,
> >>> and both the ar-/ur- language and the geminate language,
> >>> according to their respective authors, have labial/velar
> >>> alternation in auslaut.
>
> >> You've not answered the objection.
>
> > Yes, I have.
> > Schrijver:
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62677
>
> > 'Another etymon that may originally have belonged to the
> > language of geminates is *sugh-, *sug-, *su:k- 'to suck',
> > which is found in Italic (Latin su:gere 'to suck', su:cus
> > 'sap'), Celtic (Welsh sugno 'to suck' < *seuk-, Old Irish
> > súgid < *su:g(h)-), Baltic (Latvian sùkt 'to suck') and,
> > notably, Germanic (Old English su:can, Dutch zuiken <
> > *su:g-, Old English socian 'to soak' < *sug-; Old English
> > and Old High German su:gan 'to suck' < *su:k/gh-, with
> > various ablaut grades; and also Germanic *su:p- > Germ.
> > saufen, *supp- > German Suppe, etc.). An interchange of
> > voiced and voiceless velar stops and also of velar and
> > labial stops is one of the characteristics of the language
> > of geminates, as Kuiper has pointed out.'.
>
> > Kuhn mentions
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62578
> > 'kriechen und nd. krupen, streichen und streifen, tauchen
> > und taufen, nd. Siek und Siepen "feuchte Bodensenke",
> > engl. shrink und hd. schrumpfen, Strunk und Strumpf, got.
> > *auhns/ altschw. ugn und dt. Ofen, an. ylgr "Wölfin" und
> > ulfr "Wolf", dt. leihen und bleiben' although he doesn't
> > go so far as to directly assign the words to his 'other
> > Old European language'; see also his discussion in
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62531
>
> You've still not answered it. None of this says anything
> about the 'swamp' set.
> >> That labial/velar alternation is irrelevant if there's noI've failed to demonstrate that Kuhn, Kuiper and Schrijver connected the words with labial with those with velar auslaut? Or what?
> >> good reason to combine the sets in the first place,
>
> > The people who connected them in the first place are Kuhn,
> > Kuiper and Schrijver, from whom I've taken it over.
>
> You've signally failed to demonstrate this.
> >> and the clear semantic distinction between theBut when your staff comes back with sufficient evidence, you wíll pass judgment on them? You are a strange little man.
> >> two sets is hardly a reason to combine them.
>
> > There isn't any 'clear semantic distinction'. Kuhn,
> > Kuiper and Schrijver did not see it, nor do I.
>
> So you're blind. I reserve judgement on them, since we have
> as yet no evidence that they agree with you.
> [...]Okay, so what I think my own attitude towards my proposals is illusionary, whereas your what you think of it is fact? Where do you get these insights into my thought processes that are denied to me? Do you have a little friend inside your head who tells you those things? Have you considered counseling?
>
> >>>> I keep seeing this apparent principle "if they have
> >>>> some resemblance, it cannot be a coincidence" behind
> >>>> your (and some others') reasoning, but this is a false
> >>>> conviction.
>
> >>> That conviction of yours is false.
>
> >> Not really: it *is* the way you operate in fact, whatever
> >> you may claim in theory.
>
> > I think I know better than both of you how I reason.
>
> Of course you think so. That has no bearing on the facts.