Sat, 24 Jul 2021 15:26:08 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 4:47:40 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >>>On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >>>>>On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> >>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
>> >>>>>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
>> >>>>>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
>> >>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>> >>>>> are available.
>> >>>> Counted by type or by token?
>> >>> What sense does that make in counting language families?
>> >> I'm thinking in languages within families.
>> >> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
>> >> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
>> >> makes a lot difference.
>> >> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
>> >> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
>> >> statement to be true.
>> > Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?
>>
>> To determine what is "nearly all language families", quote:
>
>??? Are you under the impression that _any_ of the 1000-ish languages
>of the island of Papua (both the PNG side and the Indonesia side) have
>any written records earlier than those of the first missionaries or explorers
>who encountered them????

Are you under the impression that _anything_ I wrote on the subject,
would suggest that?

It was precisely my point that they haven’t, but are spoken by
relatively few people.

>I also doubt that you have any idea of how many families they can be
>assigned within, no matter what the degree of likelihood.

Are you under the impression that _anything_ I wrote on the subject,
would suggest that I do not have any idea of that?

>> >>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>> >>>>> are available.
>> >>>> Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean?
>> >>>IE and Semitic are the sole exceptions. They just happened to be
>> >>>where the comparative method was invented.

Sat, 24 Jul 2021 17:49:09 -0600: Ymir <agisaak@gm.invalid> scribeva:

>On 2021-07-24 17:15, DKleinecke wrote:
>
>> Now that we can rea Mayan we have New World records back to before 500 CE.
>> I haven't kept up and don't know exactly how useful old Maya is or what has been
>> done recently. But the time depth is as great as for many Old World languages.
>
>Maya (apart, perhaps, from the numerical system) would not have been
>decipherable without knowledge of the modern Mayan languages.
>
>Similarly, for all of those language for which written records exist,
>most of what we know about them is based on modern languages.
>
>While we may have lots of written records for Latin, Greek, Egyptian,
>etc., we don't have tape-recordings to tell us what these languages
>sounded like, and assigning any sort of phonological content to written
>records would be pretty much impossible absent knowledge of their modern
>descendants.
>
>Even Sanskrit, one of the few ancient languages for which we have not
>only written records, but also fairly detailed phonological descriptions
>written by its contemporaries, couldn't have be interpreted in absence
>of modern languages. A phonological description isn't much use without
>some way of confirming that one's interpretation of its terminology is
>reasonable, and that requires knowledge of related, currently spoken,
>languages.
>
>Written records can provide useful material to *supplement* comparative
>reconstruction, but they aren't much use on their own.

Good points. On the other hand, Sumerian has no modern form.

Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 22:05:04 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> <antonioprm@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>
>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>>>>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
>>>>>>>>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
>>>>>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>>>>>>>> are available.
>>>>>>> Counted by type or by token?
>>>>>> What sense does that make in counting language families?
>>>>> I'm thinking in languages within families.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
>>>>> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
>>>>> makes a lot difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
>>>>> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
>>>>> statement to be true.
>>>>
>>>> Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?
>>>
>>> To determine what is "nearly all language families", quote:
>>
>> To determine that nearly all have only modern data, a multitude of them
>> that have only modern data should count as only one?
>
> If you don’t get, you don’t get it. I give up any efforts to explain
> now.

You haven't made any efforts.

Peter said what everyone knows, that tor most of the language families in
the world only modern data are available.

You made an intriguing remark about the counting method.

Everyone else has been trying to find out what you meant by that.

Unless you were saying that if the counting method is nonsense then we can
get any wrong result we choose - and that's another truism which it isn't
worth discussing - then everyone but you is still in the dark as to what
you meant.

Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 15:26:08 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 4:47:40 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>>>>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>
>>>>>>>>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
>>>>>>>>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
>>>>>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>>>>>>>> are available.
>>>>>>> Counted by type or by token?
>>>>>> What sense does that make in counting language families?
>>>>> I'm thinking in languages within families.
>>>>> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
>>>>> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
>>>>> makes a lot difference.
>>>>> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
>>>>> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
>>>>> statement to be true.
>>>> Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?
>>>
>>> To determine what is "nearly all language families", quote:
>>
>> ??? Are you under the impression that _any_ of the 1000-ish languages
>> of the island of Papua (both the PNG side and the Indonesia side) have
>> any written records earlier than those of the first missionaries or explorers
>> who encountered them????
>
> Are you under the impression that _anything_ I wrote on the subject,
> would suggest that?

Just to clarify: yes.

>
> It was precisely my point that they haven’t, but are spoken by
> relatively few people.

But what does that matter when counting language families?
Nobody ever said 'for the languages of the vast majority of speakers in the
modern world, only modern data are available'. It isn't even easy to state
with any elegance.

>> I also doubt that you have any idea of how many families they can be
>> assigned within, no matter what the degree of likelihood.
>
> Are you under the impression that _anything_ I wrote on the subject,
> would suggest that I do not have any idea of that?

It would also be a 'yes'.

Now you may reconsider your expectations of what what you write suggests
about what you think. It's precisely because your remarks on this subthread
are at odds with what one would expect from you that you've been asked to
explain them. Otherwise you'd simply have your comment be shrugged off.

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:15:08 PM UTC-4, DKleinecke wrote:
> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:26:09 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 4:47:40 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > > <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> > > >On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > >> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > > >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> > > >>>On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > >>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > > >>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> > > >>>>>On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > > >>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> > > >>>>>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
> > > >>>>>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
> > > >>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
> > > >>>>> are available.
> > > >>>> Counted by type or by token?
> > > >>> What sense does that make in counting language families?
> > > >> I'm thinking in languages within families.
> > > >> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
> > > >> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
> > > >> makes a lot difference.
> > > >> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
> > > >> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
> > > >> statement to be true.
> > > > Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?
> > > To determine what is "nearly all language families", quote:
> > ??? Are you under the impression that _any_ of the 1000-ish languages
> > of the island of Papua (both the PNG side and the Indonesia side) have
> > any written records earlier than those of the first missionaries or explorers
> > who encountered them????
> > I also doubt that you have any idea of how many families they can be
> > assigned within, no matter what the degree of likelihood.
> > > >>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
> > > >>>>> are available.
> > > >>>> Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean?
> > > >>>IE and Semitic are the sole exceptions. They just happened to be
> > > >>>where the comparative method was invented.
>
> Now that we can rea Mayan we have New World records back to before 500 CE.
> I haven't kept up and don't know exactly how useful old Maya is or what has been
> done recently. But the time depth is as great as for many Old World languages.

Yes, the historical linguisics of the Mayan family has been useful in
interpreting the ancient Mayan languages. But we already had Roman-
alphabet transcriptions of a couple of major works from the 18th
century, which is more than there is from most languages.

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:49:13 PM UTC-4, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-07-24 17:15, DKleinecke wrote:
>
> > Now that we can rea Mayan we have New World records back to before 500 CE.
> > I haven't kept up and don't know exactly how useful old Maya is or what has been
> > done recently. But the time depth is as great as for many Old World languages.
>
> Maya (apart, perhaps, from the numerical system) would not have been
> decipherable without knowledge of the modern Mayan languages.
>
> Similarly, for all of those language for which written records exist,
> most of what we know about them is based on modern languages.

Except Sumerian, Hurrian, Urartian, ...

> While we may have lots of written records for Latin, Greek, Egyptian,
> etc., we don't have tape-recordings to tell us what these languages
> sounded like, and assigning any sort of phonological content to written
> records would be pretty much impossible absent knowledge of their modern
> descendants.

Why is it important to assign pronunciations to the phonemes?

> Even Sanskrit, one of the few ancient languages for which we have not
> only written records, but also fairly detailed phonological descriptions
> written by its contemporaries, couldn't have be interpreted in absence

Sanskrit was not deciphered. There was an unbroken tradition.

> of modern languages. A phonological description isn't much use without
> some way of confirming that one's interpretation of its terminology is
> reasonable, and that requires knowledge of related, currently spoken,
> languages.
>
> Written records can provide useful material to *supplement* comparative
> reconstruction, but they aren't much use on their own.

How familiar are you with the work on languages of areas with no
pre-20th-century written tradition whatsoever?

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 3:08:47 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 15:26:08 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
> >On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 4:47:40 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >>>On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >>>>>On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

> >> >>>>>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
> >> >>>>>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
> >> >>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
> >> >>>>> are available.
> >> >>>> Counted by type or by token?
> >> >>> What sense does that make in counting language families?
> >> >> I'm thinking in languages within families.
> >> >> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
> >> >> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
> >> >> makes a lot difference.
> >> >> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
> >> >> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
> >> >> statement to be true.
> >> > Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?
> >> To determine what is "nearly all language families", quote:
> >??? Are you under the impression that _any_ of the 1000-ish languages
> >of the island of Papua (both the PNG side and the Indonesia side) have
> >any written records earlier than those of the first missionaries or explorers
> >who encountered them????
>
> Are you under the impression that _anything_ I wrote on the subject,
> would suggest that?
>
> It was precisely my point that they haven’t, but are spoken by
> relatively few people.

I don't see bow to get that from what you wrote, or what it has to
do with anything.

> >I also doubt that you have any idea of how many families they can be
> >assigned within, no matter what the degree of likelihood.
>
> Are you under the impression that _anything_ I wrote on the subject,
> would suggest that I do not have any idea of that?

Yes. Maybe you need to work on writing more than one gnomic sentence
at a time.

> >> >>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
> >> >>>>> are available.
> >> >>>> Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean?
> >> >>>IE and Semitic are the sole exceptions. They just happened to be
> >> >>>where the comparative method was invented.

Sun, 25 Jul 2021 10:54:03 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
<antonioprm@sapo.pt> scribeva:

>Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 22:05:04 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
>> <antonioprm@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>>
>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>>>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>>>>>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
>>>>>>>>>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
>>>>>>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>>>>>>>>> are available.
>>>>>>>> Counted by type or by token?
>>>>>>> What sense does that make in counting language families?
>>>>>> I'm thinking in languages within families.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
>>>>>> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
>>>>>> makes a lot difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
>>>>>> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
>>>>>> statement to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?
>>>>
>>>> To determine what is "nearly all language families", quote:
>>>
>>> To determine that nearly all have only modern data, a multitude of them
>>> that have only modern data should count as only one?
>>
>> If you don’t get, you don’t get it. I give up any efforts to explain
>> now.
>
>You haven't made any efforts.
>
>Peter said what everyone knows, that tor most of the language families in
>the world only modern data are available.
>
>You made an intriguing remark about the counting method.
>
>Everyone else has been trying to find out what you meant by that.

Again, if you don't get it, you won't get it. It's really as obvious
as can be. Any explication is futile.

>Unless you were saying that if the counting method is nonsense then we can
>get any wrong result we choose - and that's another truism which it isn't
>worth discussing - then everyone but you is still in the dark as to what
>you meant.

So be it.

Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Sun, 25 Jul 2021 10:54:03 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> <antonioprm@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>
>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 22:05:04 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
>>> <antonioprm@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>>>>>>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
>>>>>>>>>>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
>>>>>>>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>>>>>>>>>> are available.
>>>>>>>>> Counted by type or by token?
>>>>>>>> What sense does that make in counting language families?
>>>>>>> I'm thinking in languages within families.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
>>>>>>> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
>>>>>>> makes a lot difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
>>>>>>> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
>>>>>>> statement to be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?
>>>>>
>>>>> To determine what is "nearly all language families", quote:
>>>>
>>>> To determine that nearly all have only modern data, a multitude of them
>>>> that have only modern data should count as only one?
>>>
>>> If you don’t get, you don’t get it. I give up any efforts to explain
>>> now.
>>
>> You haven't made any efforts.
>>
>> Peter said what everyone knows, that tor most of the language families in
>> the world only modern data are available.
>>
>> You made an intriguing remark about the counting method.
>>
>> Everyone else has been trying to find out what you meant by that.
>
> Again, if you don't get it, you won't get it. It's really as obvious
> as can be. Any explication is futile.

No, Ruud, it's not obvious at all. Quite the contrary, it's the opposite of
obvious. You said things that were not only at odds with what you were
replying to, they were also at odds with each other. If you have an
explanation, do provide it; if on the other hand you misread and miswrote
something, don't pretend to have been clear and wilfully misunderstood. It
doesn't behove you.

>
>> Unless you were saying that if the counting method is nonsense then we can
>> get any wrong result we choose - and that's another truism which it isn't
>> worth discussing - then everyone but you is still in the dark as to what
>> you meant.
>
> So be it.

Why? Why such unwillingness to explain what you mean(t), to the point of
claiming you've already explained it, which is not true by any standard?

We do want to know what you mean when you say things. Otherwise what would
be the point of being here?

Sun, 25 Jul 2021 17:18:07 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
<antonioprm@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>> Again, if you don't get it, you won't get it. It's really as obvious
>> as can be. Any explication is futile.
>
>No, Ruud, it's not obvious at all. Quite the contrary, it's the opposite of
>obvious. You said things that were not only at odds with what you were
>replying to, they were also at odds with each other. If you have an
>explanation, do provide it; if on the other hand you misread and miswrote
>something, don't pretend to have been clear and wilfully misunderstood. It
>doesn't behove you.

End of thread. You can play your silly games without me.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Sun, 25 Jul 2021 17:18:07 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> <antonioprm@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>>> Again, if you don't get it, you won't get it. It's really as obvious
>>> as can be. Any explication is futile.
>>
>> No, Ruud, it's not obvious at all. Quite the contrary, it's the opposite of
>> obvious. You said things that were not only at odds with what you were
>> replying to, they were also at odds with each other. If you have an
>> explanation, do provide it; if on the other hand you misread and miswrote
>> something, don't pretend to have been clear and wilfully misunderstood. It
>> doesn't behove you.
>
> End of thread. You can play your silly games without me.

No, Ruud, the only person being silly here is you. We need you if this is
to keep silly.

No one - not a single person here - has any idea what you mean(t) by your
remarks after all. Trying to elicit that information from you has been met
with tantrum. That's not in character for you, but that's how it went. If,
as you pretend, this were about games and 'not getting it', there would be
someone here who would be able to explain what you mean(t). There isn't.
Apparently not even you, and you don't get to say explanations are futile
when you haven't attempted any.

What's amazing is that I'm still wondering what it was you meant, rather
than shrugging it off.

El dia dissabte, 24 de juliol de 2021 a les 4:10:12 UTC+2, Arnaud Fournet va escriure:
> Basque is a bit tricky, but the comparison with Siouan and Caucasic shows that most of my ideas and hypotheses about Basque sound laws are correct.
>
You're an absolut incompetent on Basque, asshole.

Octavià

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 3:54:42 AM UTC-5, Tavi Alexandre wrote:
> El dia dissabte, 24 de juliol de 2021 a les 4:10:12 UTC+2, Arnaud Fournet va escriure:
> > Basque is a bit tricky, but the comparison with Siouan and Caucasic shows that most of my ideas and hypotheses about Basque sound laws are correct..
> >
> You're an absolut incompetent on Basque, asshole.
>
> Octavià

Basque Dakota Basqota Bisque Biscuit Basketcase

El dia divendres, 23 de juliol de 2021 a les 7:03:55 UTC+2, Arnaud Fournet va escriure:
> Basque shows that the roots are not entirely homophonous: azkazal, azazkal (-zk-) ‘fingernail’ ~ eski (-sk-) ‘hand’
>
Basque 'fingernail' is a compound from (h)atz, (h)az- 'finger' and (h)azal 'skin, bark', with variants such as kazal, azkal, kaskal, (m)oskol. This would be in turn a fossilized compound of two monosyllablic roots and has nothing to do with esku 'hand' (not **eski).

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 6:45:25 AM UTC-5, Tavi Alexandre wrote:
> El dia divendres, 23 de juliol de 2021 a les 7:03:55 UTC+2, Arnaud Fournet va escriure:
> > Basque shows that the roots are not entirely homophonous: azkazal, azazkal (-zk-) ‘fingernail’ ~ eski (-sk-) ‘hand’
> >
> Basque 'fingernail' is a compound from (h)atz, (h)az- 'finger' and (h)azal 'skin, bark', with variants such as kazal, azkal, kaskal, (m)oskol. This would be in turn a fossilized compound of two monosyllablic roots and has nothing to do with esku 'hand' (not **eski).

What is the Basque word for scratching? Atzazal?

Op 24/07/2021 om 12:31 schreef Christian Weisgerber:
> On 2021-07-23, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>
>>> Are you aware that neither Basque nor Spanish distinguish b from w ?
>> The <w> in Guadalajara /gwadala'xara/ is different from both /b/'s in
>> <la Bamba> ( /la'bamba/ = [la'Bamba].
>>
>> Also <Chihuahua> /tSi'wawa/. That's not Chibaba, nor Chivava.
> You can even have a sequence /bw/, e.g. buitre /'bwitre/, 'vulture'.
>
And vuelo, flight, vuelta, time, and abuelo, grandpa.

I've heard children call their grandmother bela, granny, not 'buela or
'huela.

--

guido wugi

Le mardi 23 novembre 2021 à 09:54:42 UTC+1, Tavi Alexandre a écrit :
> El dia dissabte, 24 de juliol de 2021 a les 4:10:12 UTC+2, Arnaud Fournet va escriure:
> > Basque is a bit tricky, but the comparison with Siouan and Caucasic shows that most of my ideas and hypotheses about Basque sound laws are correct..
> >
> You're an absolut incompetent on Basque, asshole.
>
> Octavià

What have you produced in 15 years, embittered buffoon ?
Nothing, nada !