spin

The full saying is "Non mi rompere le palle con le tue stronzate."

I'll leave you to that while you're down by the Styx arguing with your ferryman taking you home.

Actually, all I asked was that the thread be split, as this discussion had nothing to do with the original post. The moderator did the rest.

As to linguistics (as with most fields), when one knows nothing about the field, one tends to be swayed by people with astounding claims.


spin

Amedeo

The Phonological Method of Etymology is phony!

------Reasoning By Analogy----------


Those who employ the phonological method purely and simply do not
realize that they are involved in a fallacious reasoning: the fallacy
of analogy. For example:

We know an ancient word and a modern word which are slightly different in
sound but have essentially the same meaning -- a set of cognates such
as the Latin Fruct(us) and the Italian Frutt(o). Here and in other
sets of cognates (Pactus/Patto; etc.) we notice the sound shift from
CT to TT which occurred in the corse of history. Now we take a modern word with TT and, without even having
to consider meanings, we can find its parent (with CT). [ Some phonologists on systemtically ignoring meanins and to concentrate of the sonic nature of words!) For example:

Italian MATTO must come from *Mact(us). In other words, we infer the EXISTENCE of a word or root by analogy with known (attested) words.

The truth of the matter is that Matto comes from Matus or Mattus (not
Mactus), a Latin word akin to or derived from the Latin Madius (=
wet, soft; intoxicated). Indeed, Matto means Foolish or Mad (like an inebriated person).

It happens there is the Latin verb Mactare (one of whose forms is
Mactus). Is it true, then, that *Mactus is actually attested in Latin? If we are concerned with meanings, we find that Mactare means to glorify/immolate and, therefore, to kill. "*Mactus" and "Mactus" are homonyms, not cognates.

Interestingly, Italian dictionaries point out that Mattare (in
Italian) or Mactare (in Latin) has an uncertain origin. But Italian
has another "matto": scacco matto [=checkmate], which comes from the Pharsi or Persian "Shah Mat" (= the king is dead; the king is beaten).

Could the Latin Mact(are) be a cognate of the Persian Mat?

Semerano informs:

--- Mact(are) (= to beat down; to sacrifice). Old Akkadian: Maqtu (=
beaten; fallen; heruntergefallen).

So: {chess-game} Mact(are) <-- Maqtu --> Mat -->Matt(o)]

--- Mad(ere) (to be rotten wet;...) Akkadian Maza'u (to cause to drip; to squeeze); Hebrew Masa (to wet).

So, here comes the fool: Matto; Mad.

Conclusion:

Rules are of generalized phonological changes. When one applies them to a word in order to find its ancestor, one REASONS BY ANALOGY and fabricates the ancestor. Thus proceeding, even gods have been invented.

If fact he who sees that a table or an animal have a beginning, and that they begin to be inasmuch as they are made or generated, when he conteplates the whole universe and thinks of it analogically, he infers that it has a beginning and that an agent (a god) produced it.

When an etymologist has two words from two languages and finds them homonymous but he does not know the meaning one of them, he applies phonological rules to determine whether one is the ancestor of the other. Thus he reasons analogically and end up fabricating a meaning for the previously meaningless word.

A phonologists creates either lexical existences or lexial essences. His method is fallacious, PHONY!
---------------
I just checked the phonological dictionary to find out how they derived MAD (fool):

MAD < Old Engl. *gemaedan:to make insane or foolish, < Germanic *ga-maid-jan, < ga-maid-az: changed (for worse), abnormal.

And:
Suffixed MAD: MATTE. CASEMATE, from Latin Madere(> Mattus: drunken, stupefied.
This really takes the cake: The English word CASEMATTE has been taken to be composed of these elements: CASE + MATTE, and "matte" is derived from the Latin Mattus. This is phonologically correct. Of course, the author did not bother to consider the meaning of "casematte." One of its denotations is "a vault of stones or brickwork." It appears distorted in the Italian "arte cosmatesca," and it comes from the Greek "Chasmate", from Chasma/-atos, which contains ONE etym, which designates an opening or a chasm. The "-mate" or "-matte" is PARTIALLY a grammatical case-ending and has nothing to do with the Latin etym "Mad(ere)" or "Matt(us)".

This goes to show that phonologists thrive on the SOUNDS of homonyms!

spin

Congratulations, Amedeo, you've done a bit of cutting and pasting.

If you'd started say with someone who did this work a century ago, Walter Skeat, he would have been more helpful to you. But let's go...

Here you'll find that the underlying form of fulmen is fulgimen, if you'll check your Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary. The false etymology here is what sets you off on your erroneous road to confusion.

The concoction of a "prefixing FU" simply has nothing to do with what lies beneath.

Fulgore is related to flagro, "burn", and both relate to the Greek, FLEGW, also "to burn", and these in turn are connected with the Sanskrit BHRAJ-.

We can bring in the Anglo-Saxon BLAEC, suggesting something totally burnt up, ie "black". This is interesting due to the Slavic and main Germanic approach -- you noted above the Russian adjective for "white" obviously derived from the idea of light as derived from the flame; and O.H.G. has blinken, "to shine", from which the Romance languages apparently piched up blanc/bianco/etc = "white".

Your fighting fu- fantasy is uncalled for.


spin

spin

While Zeus is related to the sky, Ouranos is related to heaven, the abode of the gods. Ouranioi indicates "gods".

(And it is silly to thrown this casual reference to your misspelt "Yawveh". If you are referring to the Jewish Yahweh, he was clearly a mountain god, like his Ugaritic parallel, Baal (Hadad).)

Plautus and others refer to the god at times as Diespiter, which shows you the etymology as it was understood in his day, "the father of the day".

The problem is that dies comes from the same source as deus, so there is no error here at all. The relationship between sky and day should be fairly simply understood. The dyaus-piter and the day-father are liguistically playful references to the same entity and not unstrangely both first radicals are from the same source.

In this case, not. You are just making the mistake of assuming that day requires one to think of the sun. However, the sun is subordinate to the sky, and one just needs to think of Helios.

We have the name Tiw and we also have the O.H.G. Ziu. We preserve the early pronunciation in the English (not American) Tuesday, ie /tjuzdei/. In Old Norse the process is that the syllabic w has become consonantal and forced in the final position to /r/.

Sadly the Romans disagree with your etymological efforts.


spin

spin

You are shooting yourself in the foot and wasting your own time at the same time. What you don't realise is that you are meddling with systemic analyses, hence you have some of the correct processes. It's just that you need to get beyond the tools you are using, because you don't have enough information, so you fill in the gaps with your poor conjectures, perhaps guided.


spin

spin

This has come into English from the Latin calendar. Etymology here isn't too useful at all. The name derives from the Junius family, just as July derives from the Julius family, each of which had their etymological origins, but are not useful.

As to Sanskrit cognates to our "young", try yuvan.

---
Did you contemplate the Saturn connection?? No.

Why does that surprise you? The Indo-Iranian branch of the family went their own way -- together -- south-east before separating.

---
Where did this little tantrum come from? The term was more generic in centuries past. Sheesh.

And as with BHARJ > fulg-, so BHARS > far

<removed>

Incidentally, hordeum comes from fordeum

<removed> Not every word in an Indo-European language goes back to an Indo-European source. (What's the IE word for "dog", or "gate", or "hand"? Perhaps these came from Etruscan or Sumerian or Swaheli.) New words get developed along the way. Vocabulary differences are one of the means to distinguish sub-families.

You might consider Russian roje, Lithuanian ruggai cf. A.S. ryge

This has been all pretty vain time wasting. You haven't done your homework, relying on questionable sources, when you should check ordinary ones first. The early linguists were keenly aware of the subject of etymology and they built it into their dictionaries. See Lewis and Short for Latin, Liddell and Scott for Greek. Look at the philological work of the Grimm brothers (who collected the fairy stories as evidence of a common Indo-European source for many of them).


spin

premjan

Not sure whether you concluded this based on an absolute absence of Perso-Indian knowledge or not, but the Hindi word "Yuva" means (a) youth, which is close enough to a cognate (to e.g. juvenile) for me. Oh I see spin already pointed this out.

BTW, words like barley, rye and possibly seed are likely to have been borrowed along with the incidence of agriculture which is known to be from the Middle East, so they are not very good examples.

Funny, Amedeo you seem like the Semitic alter ego to Hindutvaites who try to trace every word origin to Sanskrit, and swear by the Mitanni, Hurrians and Hittites, or any Indo-European who ever ruled the Middle East (BTW, is Hurrian a cognate of Aryan? I am really curious about that one).

spin

As a moderator removed a naughty comment of mine from my previous attempted response on Amedeo here, I'll try and insert a moderator friendly comment.
There is no need for one or the other to be PIE. They could each be from one of the daughter branches. Words get invented along the way when they are needed. Sometimes they come from old parts -- ie constructing new words from words that already exist --, sometimes not. There are lots of Germanic words which have no cognates in the Italic family and vice versa.


spin

Amedeo

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,

having heard your overwhelming evidence that I am wrong in just about every position I took or declaration that I made, I formally retract everything that I wrote.

I am impressed by the truths you refer to. They all come from books of knowledge that your read. You BELIEVE that knowledge to be true and infallible. Any position of true and infallible knowledge that you express is, by definition, a dogma.

In view of the horthodox knowledge that you have, there is no need for you to seek knowledge by investigating, exploring, searching, inquiring. All this has been done for you, and now you BELIEVE that the investigations were exhaustive, that the findings were actually what they were declared to be, that any reasoning was valid, and that any interpretation was correct. Certainly facts do not present themselves to humans (unless they come from prophets), nor are facts ready made and waiting to be picked up by onlookers. (If that were the case, childtes with a well working sensory apparatus would become encyclopedias of true knoweldge in no time at all.) Facts are syntheses of the senses and of the linguistic mind and can turn out to be non-facts on account of either the senses or the mind. But this cannot happen for the facts you LEARN. Once those facts were asserted as facts, they are facts [true and necessarily not subject to being untrue]. You de facto do not admit of fallibility because you think that facts are things-in-themselves which anybody can find, and once they are found, then there is no possibility that they might be non-facts. Your horthodoxy, like any horthodoxy (about government, religion, theism, etc.) is based on your ignorance of the nature of facts.

Thus you cannot measure any position which is antithetical to your positions. All you can do is to compare the horthodox position with a presented contradicting position and logically find that the contradicting position is INCORRECT [just as a pupil gives incorrect answers to questions about dogmas]. Once I had discussions with a science-student and probably teacher about the nature of sound waves. I maintained that sound waves are not mechanical waves, but no matter what reasons I gave for my position, he found me to be wrong. He did not show, for instance, that my reasons were not really supporting reasons; he showed that my position or conclusion did not comform with the established scientific position about sound being a mechanical wave. I was INCORRECT, just as I am now in just about any declaration I make.

Those who tried Galileo refused to look at reasons (by looking through a telescope etc.) for his position that the earth moves around the earth, because they already knew he was INCORRECT: his position did not comform with the evidence of the senses, which is even admitted and sactioned by the infallible Bible. It was thought that Galileo COULD NOT be right; he was never found to be in error.

So, he retracted his position. He is reported to have said under his breath, "And yet it moves!" Even if he never said that, it is obvious to any thinking mind that that he retracted his position because, as he always knew, it was incorrect (non-orthodox); he could not possibly have retracted his position on account of its being erroneous. He was never found to be in error.

So, as far as I am concerned, this thread will rest in peace. What would be the point of my debating the facts which are proffered against me (the horthodox facts)? The destruction of those facts would not imply the authenticity of my facts.
-------
I just had add this point. The Hebrew word written, without vowels, as YHVH is usually rendered with vowels in the Roman script. To begin with, there is the Biblical occurrence of Y, which is then rendered as Ya (or Yah specifically for English readers), Yaw [yau](as a TV rabbi pronounced it), Yo, and sometimes Ye (or Yeh, as in Yehuda). There is no such a thing as one correct spelling in the Roman-script rendition of Y or, for that matter of YHVH. The next thing I am going to be told is that I mispell Zeus. The fact is that the sound of the Greek Y varies and is, therefore, transcribed into the Roman script as either Y [i] or U, as in Physica and Zeus.
Nevertheless, in this whole page I have been admittring that I am INCORRECT about just about anything I wrote. So, "Yaveh" may as well stand retracted with all the rest.
-------

REQUIESCAT IN PACE... just like the Ark under the Cross!


================================================== ====
As is implicitly the case, All posts of mine are copyrighted by me, Amedeo Amendola de' Maddamma, as of the date of posting. As it goes without saying, All of my authorship rights are reserved.

Corona688

When you add a "even though you're all wrong", that's not really a retraction. Care to retract your retraction? Then maybye you can retract your retraction of the retraction.

And I think it's pretty silly to discount what they've said because you don't like the source. Read these sources and discount them on their own merits if you can, crying foul because you're not the first person in human history to investigate these things is pointless and silly. Ad hominem. Of course their work is open to questioning, but that you haven't even read it suggests you're in no position to be making any argument for or against them. Ad hominem again. Attacking the source of what we know instead of what we know itself, again, suggests you have no knowledge of your own and hence no other recourse. They can, and in fact, just did. Your position has been thoroughly demolished, but did you learn something about the subject or not? Or was your goal not knowledge but lingual evangelism? This question's more of a point of view than a science fact. Motion is a wave, and waves are motion. You can take your delusions of grandeur and stuff them. This is nothing like it; you remain free to do and think as you wish regardless of how incorrect people think you are. Correct, it would not. Hence why the usual process is to find evidence for your ideas.