Re: The Cybalist guru's ignorance

Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Jul 3, 6:05 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:41 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
No, but because it is so in reality.
You still haven't given a demonstration of your claim. So far the only
reason you've given to believe it is because you say so.-
What is this (below) if not a demonstration of my "belgonic"
statments? Try to point out what is wrong in the following "aquatic"
explanation?
It's a long string of words that claim them to be related without
demonstrating any regular sound change that would explain these
developments over time

_______________________
Serb. OBLINA (roundness) from GNOBLINA by apheresis; cf. Eng, KNOB (a
circular rounded projection or protuberance), KNOLL (hill-top), Old.
Norse KNYFILL, Ger. GIPFEL, KOPF, KNOPF.
I already told you: the issue is not whether a particular sound change
has ever happened in the history of recorded language, the issue is
whether you can demonstrate that that sound change is a REGULAR SOUND
CHANGE that occurred in the language you are discussing.

OBLAK (cloud) from GNOBLAK (apheresis) akin to Serbian OBLOG, OBLOGA
(coat, covering); OBLEKA (cloth) cf. Latin NUBO (to cover, veil),
NEBULA (cloud).
Another string of words with undemonstrated claims that a bunch of words
are related to each other and another instruction to "cf." when there
isn't anything comparable, as though the instruction "Compare!" is
evidence all by itself.



In addition you can see that Serb. KAPLJA originated from GNOBLAK,
OBLAK (cloud), NEBO (sky); hence Serb. adj. NAVLAŽEN (soaked, wet;
from GNABLAGEN, omission of the initial /g/, /b/ to /v/ sound change
in the second syllable, palatalisation /g/ to /ž/, third syllable);
cf. HUMIDUS, UVIDUS (humid, vet).
Once AGAIN, your "proof" consists of saying "you can see" when the whole
point is that I don't see it, and I'm still waiting for your to prove it.

Do you really not understand the difference between a claim and a
demonstration? Or do you think that if you chain enough unsupported
claims together, then suddenly they become a demonstration?

Sorry, all you have here is a long string of unsupported claims.

_______________________________
Lat. humidus is related to Serb. umiti (to wash, lave); Lat. uvidus
is
related to humidus (umidus), do you no why and how? All these words
are derived from the Gon-Bel-Gon basis or the H/obligon
agglutination:
Serb. obli-gnuti => oblinuti (suffuse, flood) => obliti (suffuse) =>
oMbliti (nasalisation) => umiti (wash, lave).
Because you say so?

Above change is regular and there are many similar examples (haben =
imati; oblak =Himmel etc.).
Haben/imati and oblak/Himmel? These two pairs aren't even going in the
same direction--one purports to be from German to Serbian, the other
from Serbian to German.

My congratulation! Yes, haben => imati and oblak => Himmel; in first
case German to Serbian and in other Serbian to German. It's a very
perspicacious remark from your side... I must admit.

You have no idea what you're talking about. A regular sound correspondence is, very roughly speaking, a correspondence between sound S1 in language L1 and sound S2 in language L2, as in the examples I gave you earlier. Not, "boy, I found a word in German with an <a> that means the same thing as a word in Serbian that means the same thing that has <i>, while I found another word in Serbian that has <a> where the corresponding word in German has <i>".

The history of a
certain IE word is impossible to unveil if we do not take all the main
branches of IE speeches in a serious and the most profound
consideration.

You aren't making any serious consideration, you're doing what you want and imagining it to be meaningful.

How do you think they demonstrate ANYTHING? When
you compare things, they have to be COMPARABLE.

They are comparable, I showed it in one of our earlier discussions
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/198b0b79d7dd9e06?hl=en&;

No, they aren't. One is from German to Serbian. The other isn't. To show a regular sound change, one has to show a pattern whereby a sound in their common ancestor consistently became sound S1 in German (or Proto-Germanic) and sound S2 in Serbian (or Proto-Slavic). Not sometimes S1 in German and sometimes S2 in German and sometimes S1 in Serbian and sometimes S2 in Serbian.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Cybalist gurus ignorance
    ... whether you can demonstrate that that sound change is a REGULAR SOUND ... from Serbian to German. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Cybalist gurus ignorance
    ... whether you can demonstrate that that sound change is a REGULAR SOUND ... from Serbian to German. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Cybalist gurus ignorance
    ... the issue is not whether a particular sound change ... from Serbian to German. ... you compare things, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Michelson-Morley: Much ado about nil
    ... demonstrated by considering an experiment identical to the MMX using sound ... (in German). ... order to compare them with those of Voigt who did not obtain ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: More Deaths Blamed on Bush
    ... "Serbian ethnic cleansing scare was a fake, ... A REPORT purporting to show that Belgrade planned the systematic ethnic ... The plan, known as Operation Horseshoe, was revealed by Joschka Fischer, ... German foreign minister, on April 6 last year, almost two weeks after Nato ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)