Re: etymology of name


Harlan Messinger wrote:

"May have." Indeed. This is akin to answering an earnest question about
Earth's origins by quoting from the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
series.

"May have" is the proper way of presenting a hypothesis,
plus I warned Jake by saying that nobody follows me,
he should be careful and not easily believe what I say.
But I gave him a chance to hear something new. As
for Douglas Adams: his books are full of wit, and good
wit is always related with deep and serious problems.
Just read the opening pages of the first volume. (I can't
quote, it's a long time since I read them, but I willingly
traded a couple of philosophy books for those pages).

As for this group: language is more than fonems and
grammar rules (and linguistics more than killrating
and throwing around with the word krap). I miss
a scientific spirit in sci.lang. A love for experiments.
Take my Magdalenian experiment. What is lost when
I go for it? Either my work holds, or it is nonsense.
In the latter case I am just another kook, a lot of people
can sharpen their mind from discussing with me, for
dumb I am not, and one always learns best from
other people's mistakes. In the sciences, every way
must be explored. People must sacrifice their career
for exploring all the many ways that lead astray.
3,000 people go astray, in order to allow success
and triumph for the next one, the lucky number 3,001.
Should we only celebrate scientist 3,001 ? No, we
should also thank number 1, number 2, number 3,
number 4, number 5, number 6, number 7, number 8,
number 9, number 10, number 11, number 12, number
13, number 14, number 16, number 17, number 18,
number 19, number 20, number 21, number 22, number
23, number 24, number 25, number 26, number 27,
number 28, number 29, number 30, number 31, number
32, number 34, number 35, number 36, number 37,
number 38, number 39, number 40, number 41, number
42 --- here I stop, in the memory of Douglas Adams.
All these "numbers" I enumerated are forgotten, but
also they contributed to the progress of the sciences.
Without them, number 3,001 would have gone nowhere.

As I wrote the word number so many times, I wonder
whether it is another derivate of Magdalenian NAM ?
Must check it.

Franz Gnaedinger, number ????

.