Sir = cheese (caseus); sour = kiseo (sour)

[a***@hotmail.com]

On Apr 23, 11:41 am, Harlan Messinger

On Apr 22, 7:06 pm, Harlan Messinger

Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?

Are you able to grasp that "are you able to grasp", for the umpteenth
time, doesn't prove anything? Are you able to grasp that one more time
you are making a claim without proof?

My question is simple. There are three possibilities: 1) you can see
that zamelen and collect are related

If it were just a matter of "seeing" it, then what would we need you
for, in your mind? You're claiming it, we *don't* see it--or even if we
do "see" it, we're aware that not everything that *looks* related *is*
related, and we endlessly await from you a proof.

2) you can see that zamelen and
collect are unrelated 3) you can not determine whether the words
zamelen and collect are related or unrelated.

Stop playing games and prove whatever it is you're claiming to be true.

As long as we are debating roots going back as far back as the
putative times when PIE was spoken - it seems to me that the standard
model, Dusan's model and Gnaedinger's model are only competing
theories with no conceivable (with presently available evidence) way
of proof or disproof.

The standard model has been worked on for centuries and has the weight
of scholarship behind it but that means exactly that - that it is
accepted by most linguistics scholars.

If only Dusan and/or Gnaedinger would try to derive proto-romance from
the descended Romance languages using their respective theories - then
their derived roots can actually be compared against the predictions
of the standard model.

Until then we'll only see inconclusive bickering.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

On Apr 23, 11:41 am, Harlan Messinger

On Apr 22, 7:06 pm, Harlan Messinger

Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?

Are you able to grasp that "are you able to grasp", for the umpteenth
time, doesn't prove anything? Are you able to grasp that one more time
you are making a claim without proof?

My question is simple. There are three possibilities: 1) you can see
that zamelen and collect are related

If it were just a matter of "seeing" it, then what would we need you
for, in your mind? You're claiming it, we *don't* see it--or even if we
do "see" it, we're aware that not everything that *looks* related *is*
related, and we endlessly await from you a proof.

2) you can see that zamelen and
collect are unrelated 3) you can not determine whether the words
zamelen and collect are related or unrelated.

Stop playing games and prove whatever it is you're claiming to be true.

As long as we are debating roots going back as far back as the
putative times when PIE was spoken - it seems to me that the standard
model, Dusan's model and Gnaedinger's model are only competing
theories with no conceivable (with presently available evidence) way
of proof or disproof.
The standard model has been worked on for centuries and has the weight
of scholarship behind it but that means exactly that - that it is
accepted by most linguistics scholars.
If only Dusan and/or Gnaedinger would try to derive proto-romance from
the descended Romance languages using their respective theories - then
their derived roots can actually be compared against the predictions
of the standard model.
Until then we'll only see inconclusive bickering.

Apparently you still have no idea what you are talking about.

[Dušan Vukotić]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

On Apr 23, 11:41 am, Harlan Messinger

On Apr 22, 7:06 pm, Harlan Messinger

Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?

Are you able to grasp that "are you able to grasp", for the umpteenth
time, doesn't prove anything? Are you able to grasp that one more time
you are making a claim without proof?

My question is simple. There are three possibilities: 1) you can see
that zamelen and collect are related

If it were just a matter of "seeing" it, then what would we need you
for, in your mind? You're claiming it, we *don't* see it--or even if we
do "see" it, we're aware that not everything that *looks* related *is*
related, and we endlessly await from you a proof.

2) you can see that zamelen and
collect are unrelated 3) you can not determine whether the words
zamelen and collect are related or unrelated.

Stop playing games and prove whatever it is you're claiming to be true.

As long as we are debating roots going back as far back as the
putative times when PIE was spoken - it seems to me that the standard
model, Dusan's model and Gnaedinger's model are only competing
theories with no conceivable (with presently available evidence) way
of proof or disproof.
The standard model has been worked on for centuries and has the weight
of scholarship behind it but that means exactly that - that it is
accepted by most linguistics scholars.
If only Dusan and/or Gnaedinger would try to derive proto-romance from
the descended Romance languages using their respective theories - then
their derived roots can actually be compared against the predictions
of the standard model.
Until then we'll only see inconclusive bickering.

Apparently you still have no idea what you are talking about

Ross, you better stay out of the discussion; this is too complicated
for your retarded brain!

DV

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Dušan Vukotić

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

On Apr 23, 11:41 am, Harlan Messinger

On Apr 22, 7:06 pm, Harlan Messinger

Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?

Are you able to grasp that "are you able to grasp", for the umpteenth
time, doesn't prove anything? Are you able to grasp that one more time
you are making a claim without proof?

My question is simple. There are three possibilities: 1) you can see
that zamelen and collect are related

If it were just a matter of "seeing" it, then what would we need you
for, in your mind? You're claiming it, we *don't* see it--or even if we
do "see" it, we're aware that not everything that *looks* related *is*
related, and we endlessly await from you a proof.

2) you can see that zamelen and
collect are unrelated 3) you can not determine whether the words
zamelen and collect are related or unrelated.

Stop playing games and prove whatever it is you're claiming to be true.

As long as we are debating roots going back as far back as the
putative times when PIE was spoken - it seems to me that the standard
model, Dusan's model and Gnaedinger's model are only competing
theories with no conceivable (with presently available evidence) way
of proof or disproof.
The standard model has been worked on for centuries and has the weight
of scholarship behind it but that means exactly that - that it is
accepted by most linguistics scholars.
If only Dusan and/or Gnaedinger would try to derive proto-romance from
the descended Romance languages using their respective theories - then
their derived roots can actually be compared against the predictions
of the standard model.
Until then we'll only see inconclusive bickering.

Apparently you still have no idea what you are talking about

Ross, you better stay out of the discussion; this is too complicated
for your retarded brain!
DV

Sure, I'm happy to be just a spectator at the big Kook-Off, as
Magdaloonian battles it out with Vu-Du and the Standard Model
(represented by analys...;-D). Better than anything on TV right now.

Ross Clark

[Dušan Vukotić]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Dušan Vukotić

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

On Apr 23, 11:41 am, Harlan Messinger

On Apr 22, 7:06 pm, Harlan Messinger

Are you able to grasp the relation between Dutch zamelen (collect) and
English collect on one side and the relation of both of these words to
Slavic zemlja (earth) and Latin cumulus/humus?

Are you able to grasp that "are you able to grasp", for the umpteenth
time, doesn't prove anything? Are you able to grasp that one more time
you are making a claim without proof?

My question is simple. There are three possibilities: 1) you can see
that zamelen and collect are related

If it were just a matter of "seeing" it, then what would we need you
for, in your mind? You're claiming it, we *don't* see it--or even if we
do "see" it, we're aware that not everything that *looks* related *is*
related, and we endlessly await from you a proof.

2) you can see that zamelen and
collect are unrelated 3) you can not determine whether the words
zamelen and collect are related or unrelated.

Stop playing games and prove whatever it is you're claiming to be true.

As long as we are debating roots going back as far back as the
putative times when PIE was spoken - it seems to me that the standard
model, Dusan's model and Gnaedinger's model are only competing
theories with no conceivable (with presently available evidence) way
of proof or disproof.
The standard model has been worked on for centuries and has the weight
of scholarship behind it but that means exactly that - that it is
accepted by most linguistics scholars.
If only Dusan and/or Gnaedinger would try to derive proto-romance from
the descended Romance languages using their respective theories - then
their derived roots can actually be compared against the predictions
of the standard model.
Until then we'll only see inconclusive bickering.

Apparently you still have no idea what you are talking about

Ross, you better stay out of the discussion; this is too complicated
for your retarded brain!
DV

Sure, I'm happy to be just a spectator at the big Kook-Off, as
Magdaloonian battles it out with Vu-Du and the Standard Model
(represented by analys...;-D). Better than anything on TV right now.
Ross Clark-

Ok then, enjoy it..... :-)

DV