Re: Hlaford (lord, glavar) - the head of a tribe?

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Dec 8, 11:10 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Dec 1, 2:02 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:55 pm, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Nov 30, 12:56 pm, Weland <gi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:53 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Weland wrote:

Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:

Of course, hlaford is not a loanword from Serbian ["glavar"
(chief) or "glavurda" (big head)]. It was a little joke of
mine [a (mis) calculated provocation :-(].

Uh huh.

Nevertheless, these words are clearly related, because they
all "speak" about the round-shaped objects (glava head,
globus, lobus, lump, gomila heap, zemlja humus, caput etc.)
and they are also representing "the head of a tribe,
family". This is the reason why I am saying that lord
(hlaford, haefod) is related to Serbo-Slavic "glavar",
"glavatar" (chief) as well as it is related to the other
words for "ruler", like cief, chieftain, captain, capo...

Well, now you're moving goal posts. You said that hlaford
was a loanword from Serbian. You were wrong. And now you
say that was just a joke and shift to a different
discussion entirely.

Weland, meet Dusan. This is his standard operating procedure:
moving goal posts and endless and baffling streams of words
that get further and further from what was being discussed in
the first place while doing nothing to support his original
claims--rather, just more and more claims that are no more
acceptable than the original ones.-

Also, when Douchie says "related," he means no more than
'semantic similarity'; he has never managed to learn that
that's not what linguistics or philology means by 'related'.

So I perceive in this brief discussion so far. Good to have my
suspicions confirmed.-

There used to be quite a few linguists here, but they've been
driven away by the likes of Douche [...]

What makes you think it's okay to call him "Douchie/Douche"?

How else would you spell his hypocoristic in English?

Since Dusan is not a friend of mine, I wouldn't be using any
hypocoristics in the first place, but if I had to, I would
obviously prefer <sh> to <ch>. I hope you're not trying to
convince me that the similarity between your spellings and
"douchebag" is unintentional.

"Douche" is a perfectly good English word.

So is "disingenuous". "Douche" is a "perfectly good English word"
only in the sense that it exists and you spelled it correctly.

But "douchebag" is completely irrelevant (with considerably different
connotations).

I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse. "Douche" is of course short for
"douchebag" and an extremely common insult.

Regards,
Ekkehard


.

Quantcast