zompist bboard

Legion wrote:Octavia > STOP TALKING

Other people > STOP TALKING TO OCTAVIA

This looks like you're applying me lynch law.

How nasty must be I!

This will be the last thing I will say on the matter, since we're going round in circles. On the contrary, you're helping me shape my own line of thought. We're not talking coalescence, but divergence. Lips are part of the mouth. The tongue is part of the mouth. They're both parts of the mouth. The...

I feel I should apologize for my lack of decorum. I've been under stress from working on a paper for the phonology of Tainan Hokkien, and I'd consumed copious amounts whisky at that point. I intend this as an explaination, not an excuse, to be perfectly clear. Hip, hip, hurray! :D As hard as the wo...

BTW, Sino-Tibetan *tɬep is 'lick' and so possibly related to IE *lab- . Here's the problem of credibility again. You maintain semantic drift between a range of widely divergent meanings, but not such a possibility for 'lip' and 'lap'. Yes, IMHO these are two different mechanisms, respectively seman...

It's clear that he's overstayed his welcome. I don't hear anyone who really wants more of his hypothesis; on the contrary, there's a consensus that he's disruptive and interested only in a one-way conversation. Don't forget I've also made a reasonable criticism to WeepingElf's "Hesperic", and he ha...

Listen, Octavio, when you came here earlier I gave you some good advice. You want people to take your bullshit seriously, and I told you to approach your theory with a scientific mind, knowing that ANY criticism will help shape your theory into a valid, sound one. You haven't listened and you haven...

OK, I'd live with that.

Yeah. Come on guys, what were you thinking? Obviously a single example of a semantic shift that isn't even in the dictionary proves that it must have also happened 7000 years ago in the northern European plains. And sure, he said it required a "Stone Age" mentality to make that kind of association,...

I didn't see any death threat nor any ad hominem, so clearly Octavia you don't know what you're talking about. Ad hominem doesn't mean "insult". So are you pretending that "put you down" doesn't mean "kill you"? You must be joking! You will find out that the scientific consensus on this board tends...

Really, I don't see how you have provided any kind of case for why these words have to be related, Which words? Namely Spanish seta 'mushroom' and jeta 'muzzle', which in some dialects are found with the alternative meaning (that is, seta is 'muzzle' and jeta is 'tinder')? I think somebody else is ...

Goatface wrote:No, ad hominem is an insult masquerading as a valid argument. What I'm doing is blatantly insulting you. There is a big difference.

Then I'd kindly ask you leave this thread.

More enough, I think you should be banned. People who insult and death threat others HAVE NO PLACE HERE.

Yes, you make yourself clear. It's just very hard to believe that you would insist that *leb and *lab are two different roots, and that 'lip' and 'lap' aren't semantically related Yes, I think so. Although this doesn't exclude they could have contaminated each other in some languages. when, at the ...

Look, this sentence is an outrageous ad hominem attack: Were you here in person, I would spare the world your asinine "hypotheses" and put you down like the rabid beast you have shown yourself to be. It contains at least two different insults: "asinine" and "rabid beast" and it looks also like a dea...

Åge Kruger wrote:

Octavià wrote:But he didn't actually quoted that root. Is it Germanic *lip- 'lip' or rather *lapp- 'to lick'?

Yes. Incidentally, I quoted the root, and yet you still disagree.

Yes, because I still think they're two different roots. Do I make myself clear?

AFAIK it's the word lap which shifted its meaning to 'lip' in some languages (e.g. Sweden). I think you might be a bit confused here. 'lap' hasn't shifted it's meaning to 'lip' in Swedish. Miekko's point was that 'lip'/'läpp' (the edge of the mouth) and 'lap'/'lapa' (to lick up into the mouth) are,...

Semantic contamination is when a word which sounds similar to another one undergoes a shift in meaning to be closer to that of the other word. If you think that 'lap' is the result of semantic contamination, then please tell us what the original meaning of 'lap' was (my sources give the meaning 'to...

I've also argued several times that ancient people didn't have to think the same way than we do in many subjects. Anything you say to which you have to attach that argument, you have thereby taken out of the realm of "science" and into the realm of "unfalsifiable assertion". WeepingElf did, in his ...

You are an embarrassment of the most spectacular variety. Your so-called methodology is the worst kind of pseudoscientific drivel, and your style of argumentation would have you laughed out of an introductory university course on valid reasoning. Worst of all, you lack the good sense to be ashamed ...

But in English and Swedish, we see that the meanings lip and lick are clearly related. I've already explained that the fact these meanings might have conflated doesn't imply they were originally related: lips aren't used for licking but the tongue . This would be a case of semantic contamination . ...

Yes. His etymologies are out-of-the-blue speculations and not really worth discussing. It distracts us from the discussion of the - unfortunately meagre - evidence of what kind of languages were spoken in Europe before Indo-European became the dominant language family of the region. I'd call your a...

WeepingElf wrote:You are hijacking this thread, Octavià!

I know you're joking, Jörg!

And you still haven't explained why lip and lick can't be connected in Old European Thingummywatsit, despite the fact that they clearly are related in a number of modern languages. I'm affraid the coincidence of both meanings in some modern languages doesn't imply things were so in ancient ones. Th...

Funny you would have such an example, as the Swedish cognates 'lapa' and 'läpp' pretty much mean lick, and lip. (Well, lick is a previous meaning, these days it pretty much means '(for an animal) to lift liquid into the mouth using the tongue' ). One of them is an ablaut form of the other! They der...

Why are you hijacking this thread, boy? Conlangs don't belong here.

However, since we do not know, or at least have no sound proof of, what went on inside the neolithic mind, I suppose you've never studied anthropology, haven't you? is't a bit too far a stretch to use that as a convenient way for explaining why "outgrowth" became to mean "lip", "mushroom" and "butt...