On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:53:52 AM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-11-20 14:58, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>>> To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
> >>> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
> >>> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
> >>> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
> >>> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
> >>> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
> >>> wolves by then at all.
> >>
> >> In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog. Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
> >> Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
> >>
> >> kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
> >
> > Domestication of wolves (i.e., dogs) is much later than that.
> As is the domestication of horses, camels, llamas etc.
>
> André
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.
So what? Both sentences are irrelevant.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:07:46 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sun, 21 Nov 2021 06:00:03 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >> >kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
> >> The real story is much more interesting, complicated, and uncertain,
> >> than what you suggest:
> >> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/w%C4%BA%CC%A5k%CA%B7os
> >>
> >> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/kalb-
> >> --
> >> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
> >
> >Howl wail call keleb whelp wolf khœhwœlœpœ(s) lupus/lobo
> Of course. If that keeps you happy, why not. Ignorance is bliss.

Your ignorance is your bliss and my opportunity to correct, which I am happy to do.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:07:10 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:06:36 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:46:22 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:50:18 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> > > <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
> > > >If you adhere strictly and blindly to the "fossil record" regarding human evolution you will be less knowledgeable than if you ignored it.
> > > Three hurrays for Daudian science. This is really a breathtaking
> > > breakthrough.
> >
> > If you only compare the few bones fossilized and found, you will get little useful information, because most context depends on ecology, living specimens, soft tissue, genetics, etc.
> Have you ever excavated a midden?
Relevance? Reread what i wrote.
> Have you ever read an archeological site report?
Relevance? Is a fossil a site or a bone iyo? I was referring to fossil bones, teeth.

On 2021-11-21 10:00, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:07:00 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sun, 21 Nov 2021 06:11:44 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
>> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>
>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:26:47 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:22:57 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
>>>> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>>>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
>>>>>> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
>>>>>> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
>>>>>> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
>>>>>> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
>>>>>> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
>>>>>> wolves by then at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog.
>>>> Dutch has such a word too: trekdier.
>>>>> Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
>>>>> Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
>>>> --
>>>> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
>>>
>>> But
>> Why but? What is the contradiction?
>
> Misatim does not mean animal that is pulled.

'atim' means beast of burden (incl. dogs, horses, etc.). 'animal that
pulls' (not 'animal that is pulled') seems like a perfectly reasonably
paraphrase. mis- is an augmentative prefix.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Le samedi 20 novembre 2021 à 07:42:21 UTC+1, daud....@gmail.com a écrit :
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 10:40:23 AM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > Le lundi 15 novembre 2021 à 03:45:28 UTC+1, benl...@ihug.co.nz a écrit :
> > > On 15/11/2021 2:26 p.m., Dingbat wrote:
> > > > This looks similar to Colin Renfrew's PIE origin hypothesis.
> > > > How do linguists view it?
> >
> > > Another agriculture-driven language family spread theory. And more MPI
> > > stuff. Might be right.
> > It's kindof fashionable to try to tie macro-families and Neolithic processes,
> > but it might just be that: i.e fashionable.
> > IMO this link fails in a number of cases, noticeably Afrasian.
> > > > Millet farmers living 9000 years ago in what is now north-east China
> > > > may have spoken a proto-Transeurasian language that gave rise to
> > > > Japanese, Turkish and other modern tongues
> > > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/2296962-origins-of-japanese-and-turkish-language-family-traced-back-9000-years/
> > > The article doesn't mention that "Transeurasian" is a new name (about
> > > five years old) for what had been known for the previous century or so
> > > as "Altaic". That's the macro-version, including Korean and Japanese.
> > > Doesn't seem like a great idea -- likely to be confused with
> > > "Eurasiatic" (Greenberg's macro-Nostratic), which is far more inclusive.
> > yes, this rebranding seems to be designed to exorcize a number of problems and harsh controversies about "Altaic" itself, as if these problems and controversies were no longer there, blocking the way.
> > As criticized by Stefan Georg, the rebranding as "Transeurasian" is quite unacceptable and inadequate. To begin with, Altaic has little to do with Europe, no matter what you include in Altaic.
> > In other words, this rebranding as "Transeurasian" is the grab-em-all maxi-Altaic approach.
> > Such a dating as 9,000 yrs ago is quite shallow and more or less the same as PIE (Anatolian+Post-Anatolian).
> > It must be underlined that IEan languages clearly share a bulk of vocabulary and morphology, that makes cognacy undebatable.
> > On the contrary, it is quite obvious that "Altaic" languages fail to show a similar bulk of acceptable cognates in great numbers.
> > Incidentally, it can be noted that PIE *k^uon, NE Caucasic *xwaj, Basque txa-kur-, substratic Germanic *kurr- share an areal word *k^u for "dog" (with specific suffixes in each branch), even though these languages are **not** closely related.
> > It can be noted that this version of "Altaic" which would obviously be much, much younger than the ancestor of PIE, NWC, Basque, etc does **not** have a shared word for "dog". This may just be one word among many others, but this simple fact casts considerable doubt on the idea that the last common ancestor of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and Japanese would be only 9,000 years old.
> > The absence of a shared word for "dog" suggests that the last shared ancestor must date back to 15-20,000 years ago at the very least.
> > In other words the existence of a "Transeurasian" "family" and its dating as low as 9,000 yrs ago are non-sequitur.
> > Personally, I believe that patient and modest work on Mongolic+Tungusic+Yukaghir would be fruitful, but serious work on reduced perimeters is not fashionable...
> > The same thing is true for Finno-Permic, Ugric and Samoyedic. These three subfamilies do **not** have a shared word for "dog", which casts serious doubts on very low datings for Uralic about 5,000 years ago.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia seems to have a pretty up-to-date account of the new
> > > proposals, including what linguists and others have thought about them.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages
> -
> To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.

I'm not "pinning everything everything on a single word".
I'm just underlining that Altaic or "Transeurasian" does not even have a word for "dog", which I consider highly disturbing if this "family" is that recent as 9,000 years ago.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:07:10 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:06:36 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:46:22 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > > Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:50:18 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> > > > <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:

> > > > >If you adhere strictly and blindly to the "fossil record" regarding human evolution you will be less knowledgeable than if you ignored it.
> > > > Three hurrays for Daudian science. This is really a breathtaking
> > > > breakthrough.
> > > If you only compare the few bones fossilized and found, you will get little useful information, because most context depends on ecology, living specimens, soft tissue, genetics, etc.
> > Have you ever excavated a midden?
>
> Relevance? Reread what i wrote.

Youi made a false claim about the presence/visibility of animal bones.

Also you apparently don't know what a fossil is.

> > Have you ever read an archeological site report?
>
> Relevance? Is a fossil a site or a bone iyo? I was referring to fossil bones, teeth.

You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what is ACTUALLY KNOWN
about the human and pre-human past -- the things that are revealed
by the material remains in their campsites and dwelling areas.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:07:10 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:06:36 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:46:22 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > > Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:50:18 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> > > > <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > > > >If you adhere strictly and blindly to the "fossil record" regarding human evolution you will be less knowledgeable than if you ignored it.
> > > > Three hurrays for Daudian science. This is really a breathtaking
> > > > breakthrough.
> > > If you only compare the few bones fossilized and found, you will get little useful information, because most context depends on ecology, living specimens, soft tissue, genetics, etc.
> > Have you ever excavated a midden?
> Relevance? Reread what i wrote.
> > Have you ever read an archeological site report?
> Relevance? Is a fossil a site or a bone iyo? I was referring to fossil bones, teeth.

https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity/dp/0374157359

Scroll all the way down and read ther review by "An Archaeologist" entitles
5.0 out of 5 stars "An expert opinion: This book is rigorous and important."

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:14:44 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-11-21 10:00, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:07:00 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sun, 21 Nov 2021 06:11:44 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> >> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>
> >>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:26:47 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>> Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:22:57 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> >>>> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>>>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
> >>>>>> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
> >>>>>> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
> >>>>>> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
> >>>>>> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
> >>>>>> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
> >>>>>> wolves by then at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog.
> >>>> Dutch has such a word too: trekdier.
> >>>>> Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
> >>>>> Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
> >>>> --
> >>>> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
> >>>
> >>> But
> >> Why but? What is the contradiction?
> >
> > Misatim does not mean animal that is pulled.
> 'atim' means beast of burden (incl. dogs, horses, etc.). 'animal that
> pulls' (not 'animal that is pulled') seems like a perfectly reasonably
> paraphrase. mis- is an augmentative prefix.
> André
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.
- Misatim in another Cree dialect means lion, perhaps in reference to cougars dragging their kill to a hideaway.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 3:24:21 PM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> Le samedi 20 novembre 2021 à 07:42:21 UTC+1, daud....@gmail.com a écrit :
> > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 10:40:23 AM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > > Le lundi 15 novembre 2021 à 03:45:28 UTC+1, benl...@ihug.co.nz a écrit :
> > > > On 15/11/2021 2:26 p.m., Dingbat wrote:
> > > > > This looks similar to Colin Renfrew's PIE origin hypothesis.
> > > > > How do linguists view it?
> > >
> > > > Another agriculture-driven language family spread theory. And more MPI
> > > > stuff. Might be right.
> > > It's kindof fashionable to try to tie macro-families and Neolithic processes,
> > > but it might just be that: i.e fashionable.
> > > IMO this link fails in a number of cases, noticeably Afrasian.
> > > > > Millet farmers living 9000 years ago in what is now north-east China
> > > > > may have spoken a proto-Transeurasian language that gave rise to
> > > > > Japanese, Turkish and other modern tongues
> > > > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/2296962-origins-of-japanese-and-turkish-language-family-traced-back-9000-years/
> > > > The article doesn't mention that "Transeurasian" is a new name (about
> > > > five years old) for what had been known for the previous century or so
> > > > as "Altaic". That's the macro-version, including Korean and Japanese.
> > > > Doesn't seem like a great idea -- likely to be confused with
> > > > "Eurasiatic" (Greenberg's macro-Nostratic), which is far more inclusive.
> > > yes, this rebranding seems to be designed to exorcize a number of problems and harsh controversies about "Altaic" itself, as if these problems and controversies were no longer there, blocking the way.
> > > As criticized by Stefan Georg, the rebranding as "Transeurasian" is quite unacceptable and inadequate. To begin with, Altaic has little to do with Europe, no matter what you include in Altaic.
> > > In other words, this rebranding as "Transeurasian" is the grab-em-all maxi-Altaic approach.
> > > Such a dating as 9,000 yrs ago is quite shallow and more or less the same as PIE (Anatolian+Post-Anatolian).
> > > It must be underlined that IEan languages clearly share a bulk of vocabulary and morphology, that makes cognacy undebatable.
> > > On the contrary, it is quite obvious that "Altaic" languages fail to show a similar bulk of acceptable cognates in great numbers.
> > > Incidentally, it can be noted that PIE *k^uon, NE Caucasic *xwaj, Basque txa-kur-, substratic Germanic *kurr- share an areal word *k^u for "dog" (with specific suffixes in each branch), even though these languages are **not** closely related.
> > > It can be noted that this version of "Altaic" which would obviously be much, much younger than the ancestor of PIE, NWC, Basque, etc does **not** have a shared word for "dog". This may just be one word among many others, but this simple fact casts considerable doubt on the idea that the last common ancestor of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and Japanese would be only 9,000 years old.
> > > The absence of a shared word for "dog" suggests that the last shared ancestor must date back to 15-20,000 years ago at the very least.
> > > In other words the existence of a "Transeurasian" "family" and its dating as low as 9,000 yrs ago are non-sequitur.
> > > Personally, I believe that patient and modest work on Mongolic+Tungusic+Yukaghir would be fruitful, but serious work on reduced perimeters is not fashionable...
> > > The same thing is true for Finno-Permic, Ugric and Samoyedic. These three subfamilies do **not** have a shared word for "dog", which casts serious doubts on very low datings for Uralic about 5,000 years ago.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia seems to have a pretty up-to-date account of the new
> > > > proposals, including what linguists and others have thought about them.
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages
> > -
> > To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
> I'm not "pinning everything everything on a single word".
> I'm just underlining that Altaic or "Transeurasian" does not even have a word for "dog", which I consider highly disturbing if this "family" is that recent as 9,000 years ago.
- Ok.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 4:07:25 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:07:10 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:06:36 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:46:22 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > > > Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:50:18 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> > > > > <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
> > > > > >If you adhere strictly and blindly to the "fossil record" regarding human evolution you will be less knowledgeable than if you ignored it.
> > > > > Three hurrays for Daudian science. This is really a breathtaking
> > > > > breakthrough.
> > > > If you only compare the few bones fossilized and found, you will get little useful information, because most context depends on ecology, living specimens, soft tissue, genetics, etc.
> > > Have you ever excavated a midden?
> >
> > Relevance? Reread what i wrote.
> Youi made a false claim about the presence/visibility of animal bones.
Nope.
> Also you apparently don't know what a fossil is.
Fossil as it means to the common man, not to the ant tattooist among us.

> > > Have you ever read an archeological site report?
> >
> > Relevance? Is a fossil a site or a bone iyo? I was referring to fossil bones, teeth.
> You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what is ACTUALLY KNOWN
> about the human and pre-human past -- the things that are revealed
> by the material remains in their campsites and dwelling areas.
Are you done talking stupid? I'm not well-versed in talking stupid.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 4:13:41 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:07:10 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:06:36 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:46:22 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > > > Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:50:18 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> > > > > <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
> > > > > >If you adhere strictly and blindly to the "fossil record" regarding human evolution you will be less knowledgeable than if you ignored it.
> > > > > Three hurrays for Daudian science. This is really a breathtaking
> > > > > breakthrough.
> > > > If you only compare the few bones fossilized and found, you will get little useful information, because most context depends on ecology, living specimens, soft tissue, genetics, etc.
> > > Have you ever excavated a midden?
> > Relevance? Reread what i wrote.
> > > Have you ever read an archeological site report?
> > Relevance? Is a fossil a site or a bone iyo? I was referring to fossil bones, teeth.
> https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity/dp/0374157359
>
> Scroll all the way down and read ther review by "An Archaeologist" entitles
> 5.0 out of 5 stars "An expert opinion: This book is rigorous and important."
- Tell me where they slept safely for the last 5,000,000,000 years. The rest is commentary with little relevance to my interest in human evolution, though I'm sure it tickles your fancy.

On 2021-11-21 16:33, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:14:44 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>> On 2021-11-21 10:00, Daud Deden wrote:

>>> Misatim does not mean animal that is pulled.
>> 'atim' means beast of burden (incl. dogs, horses, etc.). 'animal that
>> pulls' (not 'animal that is pulled') seems like a perfectly reasonably
>> paraphrase. mis- is an augmentative prefix.
>> André
>>
>> --
>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>> service.
> -
> Misatim in another Cree dialect means lion, perhaps in reference to cougars dragging their kill to a hideaway.

While I would not be surprised to see misatim being used to refer to
lions, I very much doubt it actually _means_ 'lion' given that lions had
long been extinct in North America when the Algonquian languages arose.
More likely, it just means 'large animal'.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:08:45 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-11-21 16:33, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:14:44 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >> On 2021-11-21 10:00, Daud Deden wrote:
>
> >>> Misatim does not mean animal that is pulled.
> >> 'atim' means beast of burden (incl. dogs, horses, etc.). 'animal that
> >> pulls' (not 'animal that is pulled') seems like a perfectly reasonably
> >> paraphrase. mis- is an augmentative prefix.
> >> André
> >>
> >> --
> >> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >> service.
> > -
> > Misatim in another Cree dialect means lion, perhaps in reference to cougars dragging their kill to a hideaway.
> While I would not be surprised to see misatim being used to refer to
> lions, I very much doubt it actually _means_ 'lion' given that lions had
> long been extinct in North America when the Algonquian languages arose.
> More likely, it just means 'large animal'.
> André
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.

Verbatim 'lion' per That Monahaw Linguist blog post on Cree dialects
Most likely meant 'mountain lion' aka puma cougar catamount ...

On 2021-11-21 19:11, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:08:45 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>> On 2021-11-21 16:33, Daud Deden wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:14:44 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-21 10:00, Daud Deden wrote:
>>
>>>>> Misatim does not mean animal that is pulled.
>>>> 'atim' means beast of burden (incl. dogs, horses, etc.). 'animal that
>>>> pulls' (not 'animal that is pulled') seems like a perfectly reasonably
>>>> paraphrase. mis- is an augmentative prefix.
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>>>> service.
>>> -
>>> Misatim in another Cree dialect means lion, perhaps in reference to cougars dragging their kill to a hideaway.
>> While I would not be surprised to see misatim being used to refer to
>> lions, I very much doubt it actually _means_ 'lion' given that lions had
>> long been extinct in North America when the Algonquian languages arose.
>> More likely, it just means 'large animal'.
>> André
>>
>> --
>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>> service.
>
> Verbatim 'lion' per That Monahaw Linguist blog post on Cree dialects
> Most likely meant 'mountain lion' aka puma cougar catamount ...

Why not cite the actual post? 'Monahaw Linguist' returns no hits on google.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-11-21 19:11, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:08:45 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >> On 2021-11-21 16:33, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:14:44 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >>>> On 2021-11-21 10:00, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Misatim does not mean animal that is pulled.
> >>>> 'atim' means beast of burden (incl. dogs, horses, etc.). 'animal that
> >>>> pulls' (not 'animal that is pulled') seems like a perfectly reasonably
> >>>> paraphrase. mis- is an augmentative prefix.
> >>>> André
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >>>> service.
> >>> -
> >>> Misatim in another Cree dialect means lion, perhaps in reference to cougars dragging their kill to a hideaway.
> >> While I would not be surprised to see misatim being used to refer to
> >> lions, I very much doubt it actually _means_ 'lion' given that lions had
> >> long been extinct in North America when the Algonquian languages arose..
> >> More likely, it just means 'large animal'.
> >> André
> >>
> >> --
> >> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >> service.
> >
> > Verbatim 'lion' per That Monahaw Linguist blog post on Cree dialects
> > Most likely meant 'mountain lion' aka puma cougar catamount ...
> Why not cite the actual post? 'Monahaw Linguist' returns no hits on google.
> André
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.

He later removed the blog from the net.
Monahaw may be misspelled.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/GyJDypKx7ig/m/aEsCwYvICAAJ
I thought it was pasted at Paleo-etymology post but can't find it now.

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:40:26 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> > On 2021-11-21 19:11, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:08:45 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> > >> On 2021-11-21 16:33, Daud Deden wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:14:44 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> > >>>> On 2021-11-21 10:00, Daud Deden wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>> Misatim does not mean animal that is pulled.
> > >>>> 'atim' means beast of burden (incl. dogs, horses, etc.). 'animal that
> > >>>> pulls' (not 'animal that is pulled') seems like a perfectly reasonably
> > >>>> paraphrase. mis- is an augmentative prefix.
> > >>>> André
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> > >>>> service.
> > >>> -
> > >>> Misatim in another Cree dialect means lion, perhaps in reference to cougars dragging their kill to a hideaway.
> > >> While I would not be surprised to see misatim being used to refer to
> > >> lions, I very much doubt it actually _means_ 'lion' given that lions had
> > >> long been extinct in North America when the Algonquian languages arose.
> > >> More likely, it just means 'large animal'.
> > >> André
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> > >> service.
> > >
> > > Verbatim 'lion' per That Monahaw Linguist blog post on Cree dialects
> > > Most likely meant 'mountain lion' aka puma cougar catamount ...
> > Why not cite the actual post? 'Monahaw Linguist' returns no hits on google.
> > André
> >
> > --
> > To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> > service.
> He later removed the blog from the net.
> Monahaw may be misspelled.
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/GyJDypKx7ig/m/aEsCwYvICAAJ
> I thought it was pasted at Paleo-etymology post but can't find it now.

Not necessarily, according to "That Môniyâw Linguist" blog. (I forgot post#)
atimw: animal that pulls
misatim: horse
misatim: lion (Plains Cree dialect)

http://creeliteracy.org/for-language-learners/that-moniyaw-linguist-teaches-cree-verbs/

Op 21/11/2021 om 8:26 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
> Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:22:57 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> <daud.deden@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
>>> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
>>> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
>>> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
>>> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
>>> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
>>> wolves by then at all.
>> In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog.
> Dutch has such a word too: trekdier.

Huisdier, lastdier, proefdier, kuddedier, geleidedier, gezelschapsdier,
knuffeldier, troeteldier, werkdier, nachtdier...

Or rashond, straathond, zwerfhond, geleidehond, drugshond, politiehond,
reddershond, schaapshond, schoothond, modehond, koershond...

Many species:)

--

guido wugi

On 22/11/2021 8:55 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:40:26 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-21 19:11, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:08:45 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-11-21 16:33, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:14:44 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-11-21 10:00, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Misatim does not mean animal that is pulled.
>>>>>>> 'atim' means beast of burden (incl. dogs, horses, etc.). 'animal that
>>>>>>> pulls' (not 'animal that is pulled') seems like a perfectly reasonably
>>>>>>> paraphrase. mis- is an augmentative prefix.
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>>>>>>> service.
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> Misatim in another Cree dialect means lion, perhaps in reference to cougars dragging their kill to a hideaway.
>>>>> While I would not be surprised to see misatim being used to refer to
>>>>> lions, I very much doubt it actually _means_ 'lion' given that lions had
>>>>> long been extinct in North America when the Algonquian languages arose.
>>>>> More likely, it just means 'large animal'.
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>>>>> service.
>>>>
>>>> Verbatim 'lion' per That Monahaw Linguist blog post on Cree dialects
>>>> Most likely meant 'mountain lion' aka puma cougar catamount ...
>>> Why not cite the actual post? 'Monahaw Linguist' returns no hits on google.
>>> André
>>>
>>> --
>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>>> service.
>> He later removed the blog from the net.
>> Monahaw may be misspelled.
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/GyJDypKx7ig/m/aEsCwYvICAAJ
>> I thought it was pasted at Paleo-etymology post but can't find it now.
>
>
> Not necessarily, according to "That Môniyâw Linguist" blog. (I forgot post#)
> atimw: animal that pulls
> misatim: horse
> misatim: lion (Plains Cree dialect)
>
> http://creeliteracy.org/for-language-learners/that-moniyaw-linguist-teaches-cree-verbs/
>

My regular source gives *a(ʔ)θimw as Proto-Algonquian for 'dog'.

This online Cree dictionary has:

dog atim
horse mistatim
cougar misiminôs, misipisiw
lynx pisiw
cat minôs

(These are Maskwachis Plains Cree; you can adjust for a couple of other
dialects.)

It is clear that both mist- and misi- mean 'big'.

I don't see any connection with a verb 'pull'. Probably folk etymology.

https://www.creedictionary.com/

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 3:38:30 PM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 8:55 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:40:26 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> >> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >>> On 2021-11-21 19:11, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:08:45 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >>>>> On 2021-11-21 16:33, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:14:44 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2021-11-21 10:00, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Misatim does not mean animal that is pulled.
> >>>>>>> 'atim' means beast of burden (incl. dogs, horses, etc.). 'animal that
> >>>>>>> pulls' (not 'animal that is pulled') seems like a perfectly reasonably
> >>>>>>> paraphrase. mis- is an augmentative prefix.
> >>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >>>>>>> service.
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> Misatim in another Cree dialect means lion, perhaps in reference to cougars dragging their kill to a hideaway.
> >>>>> While I would not be surprised to see misatim being used to refer to
> >>>>> lions, I very much doubt it actually _means_ 'lion' given that lions had
> >>>>> long been extinct in North America when the Algonquian languages arose.
> >>>>> More likely, it just means 'large animal'.
> >>>>> André
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >>>>> service.
> >>>>
> >>>> Verbatim 'lion' per That Monahaw Linguist blog post on Cree dialects
> >>>> Most likely meant 'mountain lion' aka puma cougar catamount ...
> >>> Why not cite the actual post? 'Monahaw Linguist' returns no hits on google.
> >>> André
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >>> service.
> >> He later removed the blog from the net.
> >> Monahaw may be misspelled.
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/GyJDypKx7ig/m/aEsCwYvICAAJ
> >> I thought it was pasted at Paleo-etymology post but can't find it now.
> >
> >
> > Not necessarily, according to "That Môniyâw Linguist" blog. (I forgot post#)
> > atimw: animal that pulls
> > misatim: horse
> > misatim: lion (Plains Cree dialect)
> >
> > http://creeliteracy.org/for-language-learners/that-moniyaw-linguist-teaches-cree-verbs/
> >
> My regular source gives *a(ʔ)θimw as Proto-Algonquian for 'dog'..
>
> This online Cree dictionary has:
>
> dog atim
> horse mistatim
> cougar misiminôs, misipisiw
> lynx pisiw
> cat minôs
>
> (These are Maskwachis Plains Cree; you can adjust for a couple of other
> dialects.)
>
> It is clear that both mist- and misi- mean 'big'.
>
> I don't see any connection with a verb 'pull'. Probably folk etymology.
>
> https://www.creedictionary.com/
- Good enough for me. Thanks.

On 2021-11-22 13:38, Ross Clark wrote:

> My regular source gives *a(ʔ)θimw as Proto-Algonquian for 'dog'.
>
> This online Cree dictionary has:
>
> dog    atim
> horse    mistatim
> cougar    misiminôs, misipisiw
> lynx    pisiw
> cat    minôs
>
> (These are Maskwachis Plains Cree; you can adjust for a couple of other
> dialects.)
>
> It is clear that both mist- and misi- mean 'big'.
>
> I don't see any connection with a verb 'pull'. Probably folk etymology.
>
> https://www.creedictionary.com/

That same dictionary has several entries for 'atim' including the
following (which cree dialect this is from is unclear from the website):

atim: dog; horse; beast of burden

It also lists various verb forms which use atim- with the meaning 'catch
up with' which might be the source of 'pull'.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:39:38 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-11-22 13:38, Ross Clark wrote:
>
> > My regular source gives *a(ʔ)θimw as Proto-Algonquian for 'dog'.
> >
> > This online Cree dictionary has:
> >
> > dog atim
> > horse mistatim
> > cougar misiminôs, misipisiw
> > lynx pisiw
> > cat minôs
> >
> > (These are Maskwachis Plains Cree; you can adjust for a couple of other
> > dialects.)
> >
> > It is clear that both mist- and misi- mean 'big'.
> >
> > I don't see any connection with a verb 'pull'. Probably folk etymology.
> >
> > https://www.creedictionary.com/
> That same dictionary has several entries for 'atim' including the
> following (which cree dialect this is from is unclear from the website):
>
> atim: dog; horse; beast of burden
>
> It also lists various verb forms which use atim- with the meaning 'catch
> up with' which might be the source of 'pull'.
> André
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.
- Good catch!

On 2021-11-22 14:51, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:39:38 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>> On 2021-11-22 13:38, Ross Clark wrote:
>>
>>> My regular source gives *a(ʔ)θimw as Proto-Algonquian for 'dog'.
>>>
>>> This online Cree dictionary has:
>>>
>>> dog atim
>>> horse mistatim
>>> cougar misiminôs, misipisiw
>>> lynx pisiw
>>> cat minôs
>>>
>>> (These are Maskwachis Plains Cree; you can adjust for a couple of other
>>> dialects.)
>>>
>>> It is clear that both mist- and misi- mean 'big'.
>>>
>>> I don't see any connection with a verb 'pull'. Probably folk etymology.
>>>
>>> https://www.creedictionary.com/
>> That same dictionary has several entries for 'atim' including the
>> following (which cree dialect this is from is unclear from the website):
>>
>> atim: dog; horse; beast of burden
>>
>> It also lists various verb forms which use atim- with the meaning 'catch
>> up with' which might be the source of 'pull'.
>> André
>>
>> --
>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>> service.
> -
> Good catch!

That's not a 'catch', it's just an observation. The dictionary doesn't
list the actual root of these verbs and I am not sufficiently familiar
with Cree morphology to determine with certainty whether 'atim' is
actually the root or whether there are other morpheme boundaries that I
am missing.

So please don't take my post as evidence that 'atim' means 'catch up
with' let alone 'pull' (Ross's suggestion that folk etymology might be
involved is not unreasonable), nor as evidence that the verbal form and
the noun 'atim' are related to one another.

Similarly, you shouldn't take a blog post as evidence that 'misatim'
means lion. If someone claims the cree word used for 'lion' is
'misatim', that doesn't provide evidence that this is its core meaning,
merely that it is one thing, possibly of many, for which this word can
be used. It clearly consists of the augmentative prefix mis(i)- plus the
much more generic 'atim' so there is no good reason to assume it refers
to only a single type of animal based on one instance of usage.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 6:00:14 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-11-22 14:51, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:39:38 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >> On 2021-11-22 13:38, Ross Clark wrote:
> >>
> >>> My regular source gives *a(ʔ)θimw as Proto-Algonquian for 'dog'.
> >>>
> >>> This online Cree dictionary has:
> >>>
> >>> dog atim
> >>> horse mistatim
> >>> cougar misiminôs, misipisiw
> >>> lynx pisiw
> >>> cat minôs
> >>>
> >>> (These are Maskwachis Plains Cree; you can adjust for a couple of other
> >>> dialects.)
> >>>
> >>> It is clear that both mist- and misi- mean 'big'.
> >>>
> >>> I don't see any connection with a verb 'pull'. Probably folk etymology.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.creedictionary.com/
> >> That same dictionary has several entries for 'atim' including the
> >> following (which cree dialect this is from is unclear from the website):
> >>
> >> atim: dog; horse; beast of burden
> >>
> >> It also lists various verb forms which use atim- with the meaning 'catch
> >> up with' which might be the source of 'pull'.
> >> André
> >>
> >> --
> >> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >> service.
> > -
> > Good catch!
> That's not a 'catch', it's just an observation. The dictionary doesn't
> list the actual root of these verbs and I am not sufficiently familiar
> with Cree morphology to determine with certainty whether 'atim' is
> actually the root or whether there are other morpheme boundaries that I
> am missing.
>
> So please don't take my post as evidence that 'atim' means 'catch up
> with' let alone 'pull' (Ross's suggestion that folk etymology might be
> involved is not unreasonable), nor as evidence that the verbal form and
> the noun 'atim' are related to one another.
>
> Similarly, you shouldn't take a blog post as evidence that 'misatim'
> means lion. If someone claims the cree word used for 'lion' is
> 'misatim', that doesn't provide evidence that this is its core meaning,
> merely that it is one thing, possibly of many, for which this word can
> be used. It clearly consists of the augmentative prefix mis(i)- plus the
> much more generic 'atim' so there is no good reason to assume it refers
> to only a single type of animal based on one instance of usage.
> André
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.
- Indeed, caution is necessary.

Mis(t/ta/a/i)@Cree: great
Maximum@Egl: great sum < meg.samo (/shabbo) < meg.xyuambua < most.sum/sievings < mongolu mother (of) all...

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 6:58:05 PM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 6:00:14 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> > On 2021-11-22 14:51, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:39:38 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> > >> On 2021-11-22 13:38, Ross Clark wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> My regular source gives *a(ʔ)θimw as Proto-Algonquian for 'dog'.
> > >>>
> > >>> This online Cree dictionary has:
> > >>>
> > >>> dog atim
> > >>> horse mistatim
> > >>> cougar misiminôs, misipisiw
> > >>> lynx pisiw
> > >>> cat minôs
> > >>>
> > >>> (These are Maskwachis Plains Cree; you can adjust for a couple of other
> > >>> dialects.)
> > >>>
> > >>> It is clear that both mist- and misi- mean 'big'.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't see any connection with a verb 'pull'. Probably folk etymology.
> > >>>
> > >>> https://www.creedictionary.com/
> > >> That same dictionary has several entries for 'atim' including the
> > >> following (which cree dialect this is from is unclear from the website):
> > >>
> > >> atim: dog; horse; beast of burden
> > >>
> > >> It also lists various verb forms which use atim- with the meaning 'catch
> > >> up with' which might be the source of 'pull'.
> > >> André
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> > >> service.
> > > -
> > > Good catch!
> > That's not a 'catch', it's just an observation. The dictionary doesn't
> > list the actual root of these verbs and I am not sufficiently familiar
> > with Cree morphology to determine with certainty whether 'atim' is
> > actually the root or whether there are other morpheme boundaries that I
> > am missing.
> >
> > So please don't take my post as evidence that 'atim' means 'catch up
> > with' let alone 'pull' (Ross's suggestion that folk etymology might be
> > involved is not unreasonable), nor as evidence that the verbal form and
> > the noun 'atim' are related to one another.
> >
> > Similarly, you shouldn't take a blog post as evidence that 'misatim'
> > means lion. If someone claims the cree word used for 'lion' is
> > 'misatim', that doesn't provide evidence that this is its core meaning,
> > merely that it is one thing, possibly of many, for which this word can
> > be used. It clearly consists of the augmentative prefix mis(i)- plus the
> > much more generic 'atim' so there is no good reason to assume it refers
> > to only a single type of animal based on one instance of usage.
> > André
> >
> > --
> > To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> > service.
> -
> Indeed, caution is necessary.
>
> Mis(t/ta/a/i)@Cree: great
> Maximum@Egl: great sum < meg.samo (/shabbo) < meg.xyuambua < most.sum/sievings < mongolu mother (of) all...
(Ter-)banyak@Mly: great many
(Ter-)besar@Mly: big(gest)
Maha(t)@Hindi: great
Mucho@Spn: much
Mas@Spn: more
Omach@Azt: a great deal of, great
https://nahuatl.uoregon.edu/content/omach
*Mbuaxlay ~ the most(ly) (rel. to fertility)

On 2021-11-22 16:58, Daud Deden wrote:

> Indeed, caution is necessary.

A rather odd comment coming from one who is willing to connect any two
words with even the remotest resemblance, real or imagined.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.