Re: Fr/lat/ru tu-vous/tu-vos/ты-вы: etymology ?

Franz Gnaedinger skreiv:

On Sep 26, 8:42 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And then you ignore the evaluations of all the knowledgable individuals.

Where is that evaluation?

As dismissals of your contributions for their lack of method every time you answer a question from another poster.

Nobody told me anything about the je moi / I me question.

_You_ told _us_ (and the OP) something about that question. It was pointed out to the OP why you are not to be believed. The reason why nobody explained the different roots in the paradigm for you is that things have been explained to you before and by now we all know it to be a waste of time and effort. A followup question from a bona fide OP or from a resident halfwit like myself is usually answered with joy and skill.

[...] there is nothing about your "methods" that gives any cause for
you or anyone else to think that your "results" bear any resemblance
to reality.

If you wish to discuss the methods before the content,
as Trond Engen formulated, you have to procced in
the same way: pick out the worst I say (the worst
in your opinion, that is) and I shall discuss it.

I also said: You have no method. There's nothing to discuss beyond simply pointing out that fact.

We can't write meter long replies, you should know that, so please concentrate on one single point. Pick out the worst I say.

Not possible. The fault is in the process. All alleged results are equally bad and irrelevant, whatever may occur of random similarities (or lacks thereof) to words in any reconstructed proto-language.

You did not study my approach at early language, you dismiss it a priori.

That's surprisingly close to the point. You still don't get the difference between method and result, though. Because your _approach_ is known, your _results_ can be dismissed a priori. Scientifically.

Otherwise you could nail me on an obvious flaw instead of climbing to ever higher meta levels and dropping verdicts from above.

You _are_ nailed on an obvious flaw. Without even touching your results. There's nothing meta about that.

--
Trond Engen
- beating another half hour without writing input for the company lawyer
.