Re: Armenian, Sumerian, Burushaski, and Turkic languages

On Jun 15, 1:06 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yet you have never given a citation, except that you think you might
have read something (no author is ever named) in a volume of that
series published over a five-year span.

You are the Big Liar around here. I gave many citations,
I always name authors, just this morning Michael Janda,
my subseries _a test_ in my etymological thread was
based on the volumes 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 of the
Proceedings of the Annual UCLA Indo-European
Conference, the earlier volumes are not in my library,
but I found volume 1 or 2 online and mentioned it in
the thread on PIE upo, I mentioned volumes 15 and 16
before, I sent Heidi photocopies of two papers I had
bespoken at length in here, volume 17 appeared new
in my library, I got it as the first user, before it even was
on the shelf, a kind lady got it for me, and I also used
it for my subseries 'a test' in my etymological thread,
and I mentioned again Michael Janda and his brillant
article in this volume just this morning. What makes
you think that those Proceedings were published
over a five-year span? Wrong, or, in your wording,
a lie.

How can you claim you're not lazy when you refuse to open any standard
handbook of Indo-European to see how compounds are handled? Do you not
realize that the papers presented at the annual conferences are
directed to an audience that is already completely familiar with
everything in the basic handbooks, so there is no need for them to
repeat the basic knowledge that anyone opening those books is assumed
to already have?

Are Mallory and Pokorny and Walde not standard enough for you?
I don't say Indo-European has no compounds, I would be insane
if I claimed such a thing - I say that nobody (as far as I can see)
asked whether short words such as Latin aqua and equus and
Greek kyklos and English words such as folk and people might
be derivates of very early compounds. Tell me if an author ever
proposed to read aqua, PIE *akwa, as a compound of shorter
words. Equus is explained as PIE *ekwos, Martin E. Huld gives
an ever longer and more complicated version. I read a lot about
horse-words in Indo-European and Proto-Indo-European,
no author I read or read about proposed this word having
once been a compound, let alone a figurative compound.
My explanation is AC CA AS. I don't take equus as a given
unit, an atom of meaning, AC and CA and AS are the
indivisible units of meaning, and even this can be questioned,
perhaps A and C and S had a meaning of their own in very
early human language, say, 180,000 years ago.

You have shown no reason for questioning what you imagine to be the
basic hypothesis ("word length") other than your own inchoate
fantasies.

Do you agree now that an early language of short words only
could have existed?

Franz Gnaedinger

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
    ... In german, compounds are almost universal, but in english not so much. ... meaning of the phrasal verb is the sum of the meaning of its parts (and ... now got a lexical meaning of its own), to make the point that nothing is ... gained by substituting a phrasal verb for a lexical item. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Newbie stuff: Kanji. The Heisig-way or the Highway?
    ... Meaning I get compounds ... and readings delivered next to Heisig's fancy stories. ... That's one of the things that struck me as odd about Heisig - the "Do it my way, it will damage the learning process if you ...
    (sci.lang.japan)