Science and Technology news... :: View topic - The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illustrate

Brian M. Scott · Guest

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:34:27 -0800 (PST),
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote
in
<news:6de80234-ec34-4082-a678-d2391859c261@a17g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:

[quote]On Nov 18, 3:27 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:50:02 -0800 (PST),
"ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
news:aa52dc09-81bb-4276-9890-485c11447824@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
[/quote]
[...]

[quote]In India, I once came across the owner of a store with
Unique> in its name; he pronounced it [junikju] which he
wouldn>t have done if it were spelt <yuneek> or something
close to it.

So? He clearly didn>t understand English spelling
conventions; is that any reason to inconvenience millions
who do?

Who would be inconvenienced?
[/quote]
That is an outstandingly stupid question. Every fluent
reader of English, of course.

[...]

Guest

On Nov 19, 4:40 am, "John Atkinson" <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[quote]Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 6:17 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Nov 17, 3:39 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:

The thought that Franz should be able to disrupt the group
irrecoverably is very disagreeable. Shouldn>t we put up a fight?-

You>ve been doing so, most disagreeably, with the sole result of
encouraging his metastasis.

If more people joined me, he would be disgusted enough to leave the
place.

Do you really believe this yourself? Some people actually thrive on being
beaten up on, and the more shit you pile on them the happier they are.
[/quote]
I perfectly understand your point, but I think Franz is not one of
them. A web search suggests that he has been disgusted out of several
forums (not all of them even linguistic) until he settled down here.

Guest

On Nov 19, 8:46 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote]My my I my my my I me.
My my I my I my my I my my
[/quote]
No reference to anybody else>s work, just "I", "my", "me".

Peter T. Daniels · Guest

On Nov 19, 1:46 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:

[quote]PIE, in my opinion, has several shortcomings.
I pointed them out before. Here again. Sound laws
don>t really hold, PIE doesn>t reach deep enough
in time, there is no reliable idea of early human
language,
[/quote]
That>s right. And fantasizing about it doesn>t help.

[quote]ever more complicated verbal formulas
are hardly able to represent early words, and the
way archaeology and other scientific disciplines
are dismissed in sci.lang is not acceptable to me.
[/quote]
The only way archeology tells us about ancient language is by
uncovering inscriptions.

[quote]As phonetic laws don>t really hold, paleo-linguistics
can>t be done in a quasi-algebraic manner, removed
from life and meaning.
[/quote]
Until you bother to learn what :"sound law" or "phonetic law" means,
you have no standing to comment on their "holding" -- a contentless
concept.

[quote]I have often been asked for a test case, otherwise
my Magdalenian approach to early language can>t
be considered scientific. I offered several test cases,
the most elaborate one so far is found near the begin
of this here thread: Magdalenian BIR versus PIE *bher-,
English bear as the furry one, provider of the best fur,
thick, longhaired, soft and warm, vs. bear as the brown
one.
[/quote]
For the gazillionth time, how could your "approach" be _falsified_?

Franz Gnaedinger · Guest

On Nov 19, 4:02 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]
The only way archeology tells us about ancient language is by
uncovering inscriptions.
[/quote]
There are plenty of ideograms accompanying
cave art, there is a regular inscription in the Brunel
Chamber of the Chauvet Cave, there is a regular
hieroglyphic inscription on pillar 18, temple D,
Göbekli Tepe.

[quote]Until you bother to learn what :"sound law" or "phonetic law" means,
you have no standing to comment on their "holding" -- a contentless
concept.
[/quote]
Mathematical laws hold, ergo mathematics and
geometry and algebra is/are a science. Physical laws
hold, for example the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
ergo physics is a science. Chemical laws hold, ergo
chemistry is a science. Astronomical laws hold, ergo
astronomy is a science. Astrological laws don>t hold,
ergo astrology is no science. Economical laws hold
and don>t hold, sound laws hold and don>t hold, ergo
economics and linguistics are in between science
and astrology.

[quote]For the gazillionth time, how could your "approach" be _falsified_?
[/quote]
If you and your discipline were in possession of laws
that hold - real laws I mean -, you could disprove my
many and bold reconstructions (if they were wrong).
When Watson proposed several molecules and their
combinations in (re-)constructing the DNA, Crick
checked them on the basis of chemical and physical
laws, and as these laws hold, he could falsify the wrong
molecules and forms and structures, and finally confirm
the good construction of the spiralling molecule of life.

Now please get out of my publishing thread, you
are ever repeating yourself, you are ever imposing
your dire narrow views upon everybody else. Do it
outside of my publishing thread. You say all the time
you are not interested in my work and not in what
interests me, for example Göbekli Tepe, so why
do you feel compelled to hang around me all the
time, not respecting my wish of keeping my
publishing thread lean?

Franz Gnaedinger · Guest

The fire giver PIR GID and the fur giver BIR GID
and the fertility giver BRI GID became the powerful
Celtic triple goddess Brigid. In a beautiful book
by Iain Zaczek, The Cronicle of the Celts, I find this
caption on the festival of Brigid:

Imbolc was the second of the Celtic seasonal
festivals, covering the months of February,
March and April. The chief rituals were carried
out on 1 February and had strong associations
with fertility. In pastoral terms, they were linked
with lambing and the lactation of ewes. The
festival was also devoted to the powerful triple
goddess Brigid. In her different aspects, she
was influential in the fields of healing, poetry
and smithcraft. Poets regarded her as the
source of literary inspiration and her protection
was frequently invoked by mothers in childbirth.
In Ireland, she was probably connected to the
worship of Brigantia, a northern British deity,
and also with the Irish saint of the same name.
It can be no coincidence that the latter>s feast
day is celebrated on 1 February, the same day
as Imbolc.

You may also consider that the Christian festival
of the Candlemass or Purification (of the Virgin
Mary) is on the same day, February 1 (to my
knowledge).

The fire giver PIR GID, accounting for both candles
and smithcraft, was also )OG for the one who has
the say, accounting for poetry in the above enumeration.
How does fire go along with language? Consider the
Christian festival of Pentecost, going back to the
Holy Ghost in the form of a dove endowing people
with a universal language descending on the their
heads in the form of flames ...

-

[quote]My "Vision of the Paleolithic Sky" from early spring
found a continuation in my new series of messages
posted yesterday: "From the Ice Age to the Bible"
(part 1 - 6). I am happy about the progress of my
work and consider it one more confirmation of
my Magdalenian approach to early language.

PIE, in my opinion, has several shortcomings.
I pointed them out before. Here again. Sound laws
don>t really hold, PIE doesn>t reach deep enough
in time, there is no reliable idea of early human
language, ever more complicated verbal formulas
are hardly able to represent early words, and the
way archaeology and other scientific disciplines
are dismissed in sci.lang is not acceptable to me.
As phonetic laws don>t really hold, paleo-linguistics
can>t be done in a quasi-algebraic manner, removed
from life and meaning.

My Magdalenian experiment, beginning in early 2005,
is fully documented in the Google archive. Also the
conditions of my work are documented. New ideas
always encountered massive hostility. Nothing changed
with the global village of the World Wide Web at the
begin of the third millennium AD.

I have often been asked for a test case, otherwise
my Magdalenian approach to early language can>t
be considered scientific. I offered several test cases,
the most elaborate one so far is found near the begin
of this here thread: Magdalenian BIR versus PIE *bher-,
English bear as the furry one, provider of the best fur,
thick, longhaired, soft and warm, vs. bear as the brown
one. People killrate my messages, while nobody can
disprove my etymology of bear, nor provide new and
better etymology for the PIE etymology. And so I feel
entitled to go on with my work. The more so as my
new work - the series of messages posted yesterday,
developed for several weeks in another thread -
reveals that BIR has an unexpected cosmological
component opening a new window on a far bygone
past.

-

From the Ice Age to the Bible (part 6)

The Cattle of Syria/Palestine were domesticated
some seven thousand years ago in the Hulah
basin, not far north of Lake Tiberias. May it be
that bulls grazed on the fertile parts of the western
shore of Lake Tiberias in the time of Jesus, and
may it be that he objected to this use by saying:
The cattle produce meat for the Romans and
the rich Jews who adopted the Roman way of life.
The bulls produce meat for a few, and block the
way to the lake for our fishermen. We could make
a better use of the fertile parts of the land by
growing fields and planting trees. And we could
save people from death by maintaining medical
centers, and we could make the blind see by
teaching them, and we could make the lame
stand on their on feet and walk by opening schools
and giving them a chance to learn a profession ...
May it be that the ancient name of Magdala,
home of Mary Magdalene, was MUC DAL,
representing an old world that has come to an
end in the eyes of Jesus? May it be that Lazarus,
Martha and Mary from Magdala were siblings
of a wealthy family, supporting Jesus in his plans?
He did wonders. Wonders are contributions to
life. His first wonder was the transformation of
water into wine on the occasion of a marriage.
Love can turn water into wine, metaphorically,
while the best wine can>t save a marriage
lacking in love.

(end of part 6)

-

From the Ice Age to the Bible (part 5)

The standing formula for the creation of the
world )OG BIR AC CA was modified through
time and finally became the begin of the Bible,
Genesis 1:1. )OG for the one who has the say
became El or Elohim. BIR for the cosmic fur
became bara' for created - Elohim created -,
in some forms blended with BRA for the right
arm, turning creation into a more deliberate
act, consider BRA MAN Brahman who created
the world playing his lyra with his right hand (man)
and arm (bra). AC for the earth became 'erets,
comparable to Latin agrum English acre arable
earth, German Acker Erde, Swiss Acher Aerde
Härd. And CA for sky, or rather CA MAI for the
sky (ca) promising the pleasure and comfort of
the female zone in a Magdalenian camp (mai)
became shamayim (c- shifting to sh- as in the
case of French court courte English short).

The Jewish tradition has very deep roots that
may here be outlined briefly. The sky god of
Göbekli Tepe was AAR RAA NOS meaning:
mind (nos) of the one composed of air (aar)
and light (raa), seen ex negativo through the
big limestone ring, a god who became the
Greek sky god Ouranos. NOS AAR RAA
as the one who followed the mind (nos) of
the one composed of air (aar) and light (raa)
became Noah. Noah led his people to Armenia,
Armenian comes from AAR RAA MAN for those
who carry out the will of the one composed of
air (aar) and light (raa) with their right hand (man).
AAR RAA NOS is also present in Haran Harran
just south of Göbekli Tepe. Abram Abraham
was linked with Harran, his name can be read
as ABA BRA meaning: he who carries out the
will of the (heavenly) father (aba) with his right
arm (bra). Abraham had a son by the name of
Isaac who may stand in the long line of bird men
as a class of supreme rulers, GhI ShA AC for
a bird call (ghi) ruler (sha) land (ac). Ja>aqob
Jacob whose byname was Israel had a vision
in the wilderness, he sees the Lord in an aureole
on top of a heavenly ladder, and in the morning
he piles up the stones he used for a pillow and
pours oil on the pile, thus making himself the
ruler of the wilderness that was to become Judea.
Now the top of many pillars of the Göbekli Tepe
are covered in cup marks, bowls carved in the
limestone, and these bowls may well have been
filled with fragrant oils when a ruler or leader was
appointed, standing in one of the temples, under
a tall pillar. Jacob is then accepting his fate of
becoming a minor ruler, not a supreme ruler
as his father Isaac, in a gesture of touching
modesty. His name would come from ShA AC,
and his byname Israel from AS RAA ) meaning:
upward (as) to the light (raa) of the Lord (clicking l
that became El and Elohim).

(end of part 5, to be continued)[/quote]

John Atkinson · Guest

ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Nov 18, 10:32 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:34:27 -0800 (PST),
"ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote

On Nov 18, 3:27 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:50:02 -0800 (PST),
"ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
news:aa52dc09-81bb-4276-9890-485c11447824@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:

[...]

In India, I once came across the owner of a store with
Unique> in its name; he pronounced it [junikju] which he
wouldn>t have done if it were spelt <yuneek> or something
close to it.
So? He clearly didn>t understand English spelling
conventions; is that any reason to inconvenience millions
who do?
Who would be inconvenienced?

That is an outstandingly stupid question. Every fluent
reader of English, of course.

Fluent readers of English would give it a miss unless it happens to
get very popular. Those who are not fluent would be limited to reading
whatever reading material is available or whatever material can be
automatically transcribed on a computer using something like
Babelfish.
[/quote]
Well, that last is the most sensible thing you>ve said. It would be
trivially easy to produce an automatic "translater" from the standard
spelling to another one (much simpler than translation from one language to
another, as Babelfish does). Anyone with a proposal for reformed spelling
could produce such a program, which you could link with your browser so that
everything you (and your children) read using it would be spelled in the new
way on the screen.

The success or otherwise of each such program would determine by natural
selection what the best (= fittest, in the Darwinian sense) English
orthography was. If it happened that hardly anyone ended up using any of
them, the non-reformers could claim victory, and we wouldn>t have to listen
any more to these interminable discussions. (IMO, the standard arguments
produced by _both_ sides are all pretty silly.)

John.

Guest

On Nov 20, 9:18 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote]

If you and your discipline were in possession of laws
that hold - real laws I mean -, you could disprove my
many and bold reconstructions (if they were wrong).
[/quote]
Your "reconstructions" cannot be disproved any more than "The Lord of
the Rings" can be disproved. The very fact that they can>t be
disproved shows they are no science.

[quote]
Now please get out of my publishing thread,
[/quote]
It is not publishing, it is called spamming. And you have no business
telling people what they should be doing in your "publishing thread".
Do you honestly think you own the place? If you see it as your God-
given right to insert your odious and worthless Magdalenian crap most
everywhere, you can be damn sure that you>ll be paid back.

Peter T. Daniels · Guest

On Nov 20, 2:18 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 19, 4:02 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

The only way archeology tells us about ancient language is by
uncovering inscriptions.

There are plenty of ideograms accompanying
cave art, there is a regular inscription in the Brunel
Chamber of the Chauvet Cave, there is a regular
hieroglyphic inscription on pillar 18, temple D,
Göbekli Tepe.
[/quote]
If all they are is "ideograms," then they>re not writing, and there is
no way to assign phonetic readings to them -- because they don>t have
any specific ones.

[quote]Until you bother to learn what :"sound law" or "phonetic law" means,
you have no standing to comment on their "holding" -- a contentless
concept.

Mathematical laws hold, ergo mathematics and
geometry and algebra is/are a science. Physical laws
hold, for example the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
ergo physics is a science. Chemical laws hold, ergo
chemistry is a science. Astronomical laws hold, ergo
astronomy is a science. Astrological laws don>t hold,
ergo astrology is no science. Economical laws hold
and don>t hold, sound laws hold and don>t hold, ergo
economics and linguistics are in between science
and astrology.
[/quote]
How many times do you have to be told that "Lautgesetz" has nothing to
do with "laws of physics"?

[quote]For the gazillionth time, how could your "approach" be _falsified_?

If you and your discipline were in possession of laws
that hold - real laws I mean -,
[/quote]
No one but you has ever claimed that it does.

[quote]you could disprove my
many and bold reconstructions (if they were wrong).
[/quote]
It>s your responsibility to say what evidence could disprove your
hypothesis.

Franz Gnaedinger · Guest

On Nov 20, 1:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]
If all they are is "ideograms," then they>re not writing, and there is
no way to assign phonetic readings to them -- because they don>t have
any specific ones.
[/quote]
Your time as dicator of sci.lang is over. Narrow
opinions such as yours peter out automatically,
as barren views lead nowhere. You>d better use
your remaining years for doing something that
would open a way into the future. I identify many
of the ideograms with words, the ideograms that
accompany the bulls in the rotunda of Lascaux,
for example. Rectangular forms have the phonetic
value DAI for protected area, dots have the value
of SAI for life, existence, and in the case of the
domino five plus an additional dot in the Chauvet
cave they have the meaning of PAS for everywhere
in a plain, here, south and north of me, east and
west of me, all in all five places, while the dot
next to the upper left dot of the domino five can
be read as CA for sky, yielding the message:

O O O CA
O
O O PAS

PAS CA --- everywhere (pas) in the sky (ca),
may the bull man (the supreme leader) roam the sky
in his next life as he roams the land in this life. Now
the bull man is depicted on a stalactite in the rear
hall of the Chauvet cave, next to a Venus (legs and
vulva) who can be identified with the Summer Triangle
Deneb Vega Atair, and, most remarkably, the same
couple is present in the pair of central pillars of temple
D, Göbekli Tepe -- pillar 31 marked with a bucranium,
the head of a bull, and pillar 18 with a hieroglyphic
inscription I read as )OG BIR AC CA which refers
to the act of creation performed by the triple goddess,
one emanation of which is BRI GID identical with the
Venus of Chauvet. And then again I may remind you
of Michael Janda, who, relying on his studies of the
Rig Veda, came to the conclusion that people of the
Stone Age must have believed in a heavenly abode.
This heavenly abode is the Summer Triangle, and
the banks of the Milky Way as heavenly river.

[quote]How many times do you have to be told that "Lautgesetz" has nothing to
do with "laws of physics"?
[/quote]
All honest PIE scholars admit that their reconstructions
are half scientific half guesswork. Because sound laws
don>t really hold. Linguistics is not yet a real science. But
you thunder along as if you were in the possession of truth,
pure gold, solid certainty.

[quote]It>s your responsibility to say what evidence could disprove your
hypothesis.
[/quote]
Scientific laws could disprove my hypothesis, but linguistics
does not possess real laws. Linguistics is in the same state
as astrology in Babylonian times. Some of it was science,
some of it was superstition, and both were packed into solid
dogmatism, allowing no doubt. The more obvious the faults
became, the more dogmatic the dogmaticians became,
the Peter T. Danielses of old, until, finally, the whole thing
burst, and science was extracted from astrology and became
what we know as astronomy, while astrology was the rest,
all the nonsense that was discarded by science. Linguistics
has to undergo a similar process, extract real scientific laws
from the vague half-laws of present-day linguistics, but this
can>t be done by dogmaticians, and least of all by dogmaticians
of your caliber, re as publi can in your authoritarian stance.

Peter T. Daniels · Guest

On Nov 20, 9:33 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 20, 1:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

If all they are is "ideograms," then they>re not writing, and there is
no way to assign phonetic readings to them -- because they don>t have
any specific ones.

Your time as dicator of sci.lang is over. Narrow
opinions such as yours peter out automatically,
as barren views lead nowhere. You>d better use
your remaining years for doing something that
would open a way into the future. I identify many
of the ideograms with words, the ideograms that
[/quote]
(a) But you INVENTED the words.

(b) If each one corresponds to a specific "word" in your invented
"language," then they are, by definition, not "ideograms."

[quote]How many times do you have to be told that "Lautgesetz" has nothing to
do with "laws of physics"?

All honest PIE scholars admit that their reconstructions
are half scientific half guesswork. Because sound laws
don>t really hold. Linguistics is not yet a real science. But
you thunder along as if you were in the possession of truth,
pure gold, solid certainty.
[/quote]
It>s really not my fault that you cannot rid your tiny brain of its
misperception of "Lautgesetz."

[quote]It>s your responsibility to say what evidence could disprove your
hypothesis.

Scientific laws could disprove my hypothesis, but linguistics
[/quote]
No, "laws" do not falsify hypotheses. Only EVIDENCE does that.

(If "laws" existed, you would have to be pretty stupid to offer a
hypothesis that violated them.)

[quote]does not possess real laws. Linguistics is in the same state
as astrology in Babylonian times. Some of it was science,
[/quote]
Another thing you know nothing of: Mesoptamian astrology.

(Which had nothing to do with Mesopotamian astronomy.)

[quote]some of it was superstition, and both were packed into solid
dogmatism, allowing no doubt. The more obvious the faults
became, the more dogmatic the dogmaticians became,
the Peter T. Danielses of old, until, finally, the whole thing
burst, and science was extracted from astrology and became
what we know as astronomy, while astrology was the rest,
[/quote]
Another thing you know nothing of: the history of Mesopotamian
science.

[quote]all the nonsense that was discarded by science. Linguistics
has to undergo a similar process, extract real scientific laws
from the vague half-laws of present-day linguistics, but this
can>t be done by dogmaticians, and least of all by dogmaticians
of your caliber, re as publi can in your authoritarian stance.
[/quote]
You might have a look at "synergetic linguistics," a curous attempt to
mathematicize the study of language. Unfortunately the only data
available to it concern the frequency and length of components of
speech or writing, so it has little to tell us about language. It
stems from the work of G. K. Zipf, which was recognized already in his
lifetime as essentially tautological.

The most convenient and accessible reference work is the encyclopedic
*Quantitavie Linguistik* (about half in English and half in German),
in the de Gruyter series of Handbuecher zur Sprach- und
Kommunikationswissenschaft. The editors include Reinhard Koehler and
Gerhard Altmann, and it was published in 2006.

Guest

On Nov 20, 4:33 pm, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 20, 1:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

If all they are is "ideograms," then they>re not writing, and there is
no way to assign phonetic readings to them -- because they don>t have
any specific ones.

Your time as dicator of sci.lang is over.
[/quote]
Have you bought the place, then? Who from?

Adam Funk · Guest

On 2008-11-18, Brian M. Scott wrote:

[quote]On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:07:59 -0800 (PST),
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote

Would it be ridiculous to change the spelling such
that it is spelt phonetically according to Shakesperian English
speech?

Whose individual variety of Shakesperean English would you
use to establish the spelling?
[/quote]
Shakespeare>s, obviously. Or is that Shakespere>s? Or maybe
Shakspeare. Wait, I told that wrong.

--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don>t suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]

Peter T. Daniels · Guest

On Nov 20, 12:56 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
[quote]Craoibhi...@gmail.com skreiv:

On Nov 20, 4:33 pm, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:

On Nov 20, 1:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

If all they are is "ideograms," then they>re not writing, and there
is no way to assign phonetic readings to them -- because they don>t
have any specific ones.

Your time as dicator of sci.lang is over.

Have you bought the place, then? Who from?

No need. His strategy is liberation through extinction.
[/quote]
As in, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it"? (One of
the more prominent quotations to emerge from the Vietnam War.)

Trond Engen · Guest

Craoibhin66@gmail.com skreiv:

[quote]On Nov 20, 4:33 pm, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:

On Nov 20, 1:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

If all they are is "ideograms," then they>re not writing, and there
is no way to assign phonetic readings to them -- because they don>t
have any specific ones.

Your time as dicator of sci.lang is over.

Have you bought the place, then? Who from?
[/quote]
No need. His strategy is liberation through extinction.

--
Trond Engen
- more into extinction through libation


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Languages Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 77, 78, 79 ... 91, 92, 93 Next
Page 78 of 93