djr33
You said "insert rest of defense about why we should be open minded here."
No one is asking you to open your mind. Just use it for thinking.
By the way, I have finally gotten around to read some of your old post from couple of days ago, and "o my god"! I have never seen anything so arrogant:
I said:
I speak the local (Serbian) dialects I talk about.
And then you said:
Oh no! You're necessarily biased then. (If I told you that American English was really cool because X, you'd be right to wonder about my biases too!).
Whatever else goes on with this research, I urge you strongly to consider:
1. How this might be affecting you.
2. Whether someone else who knows what you know but isn't directly part of it would come to the same conclusions you have.
If nothing else, you're putting much more emphasis on the implications of this evidence than anything else. Your entire theory of, well, everything, is starting from the two dialects you just happen to speak. That's a big warning sign. It doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means that you're likely to have a biased perspective.
Depends what your argument was for claiming that American English is cool. And I do believe that it is cool, particularly for linguists, because it is a "real time" language laboratory showing you how languages mix and evolve.
But I wouldn't accuse you of bias. That is your way of looking at things, not mine.
Do you think that anyone told sir William Jones that he was biased when he proposed that there is a relationship between English and Hindi and when he coined term Indo Euoropean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jones_(philologist)
The only reason he was able to spot the similarities between European languages and languages of the Indian subcontinent was because he was fluent in English, Welsh and he learned several Indian languages when he worked there as a lawyer. He used languages he new and understood best to draw his conclusions. So do I.
I speak local south Serbian dialects, but I also speak (to a various degrees) all the other south Slavic languages. I can speak Russian and English. I understand Irish, some Greek, Spanish, Latin. All of this helps me to see similarities between languages, in the same way it helped sir William Jones.
So do you think sir William Jones was biased? And if you don't, why do you think I am biast?
And by the way, what do you use to come to your conclusions? Your own knowledge of languages, your own experience in comparing them and your own investigation or do you rely on what other people tell you?
Etymology for English word no:
From Middle English no, na, from Old English nā, nō (“never”), from Proto-Germanic *nai (“never”), *nē (“not”), from Proto-Indo-European *ne, *nē, *nēy (negative particle), equivalent to Old English ne (“not”) + ā, ō (“ever, always”). Cognate with West Frisian né (“no”), West Frisian nea (“never”), Dutch nee (“no”), Low German nee (“no”), German nie (“never”), Icelandic nei (“no”). More at nay.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/no#Etymology_2eeee -- what is that thing? I want that thing
neee -- protecting that thing razing hands and creating boundary and saying sound for boundary combined with the sound for object which exists and lies or sits there before us.
Let me show you another picture, which might help you understand the meaning of the term boundary:
U and V are two sounds which mean "IN" in various Serbian dialects.
The red line tracing the shape of the future Vinca script letters, defines the boundary specified with the sound "N".
I will continue with my elaboration on the meaning of N sound as boundary sound in my next post.
jkpate
I am writing my summary text and will post it at the end of the week.
