@stephen_j_p Thanks, i’m most likely going to annotate them very conservatively, the emerging recursive nature of the site will allow us to experience atymology in it’s diversity, but since we are dealing with the PIE it must start out very conservative.

@HailTheKing You aren’t interested in trying to solve etymological debates? Like the Hebrew/Teutonic link?

I mean Hebera the PIE word sounds very much like HEBREW and it means “Heavy, weighty”

Hebrew is said to come from Ibrim, an ancestor; notice that Hebera and Ibrim have the same structure AND Hebrews were strong and tall people.

There is a guy who states that a lot of the Ancient hebrew and Teutonic terms for things like sky, earth, moon, sound, are similar; suggesting that in ancient times the two peoples had much more intercourse.

I encourge anyone and everyone to PROVE ME WRONG in anything i say. I actually get pleasure out of being proven wrong because i automatically learn something and it is this type of organic epiphanous learning that makes you rewrite what you already know.

No better way to learn than be proven wrong.

> Hebrews were strong and tall people.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think Jewish people are known for being tall. 

@dalmo I would like that cleared up for me lol, because I read that they were, especially the desert nomads.

Reading up on it a little i’m finding that the jews are averaged height nowadays with slight shortness in countries like romania. Jewesses, are often taller than females of other races.

I’m interested in more ancient bloodlines though, like in Herodotus' “History” he says “The spartans were founded by a jew” (Very interesting statement)

And I believe Northern Native americans are ancient Jews and many of them are very tall

@ewokABdevito

Prove me wrong

That’s not how logic works. The scientific method begins with an assertion/theory, yes, but you need to test it and start coming up with results in its favour before there’s reason to believe it.

If you can determine from historical documents that an early word is used in a certain way, then the same or a similar word is later used in a different but semantically similar way, you have a basis to believe that the latter word might derive from the former.

And let’s not forget principles of phonetic change – I’ve worked on these (as homework) myself, and they are pretty rigorous.

I haven’t done the research for “virus,” but I have seen examples of the process, and I think it’s not hard to see the connection between “slimy poison” and “virus” in the modern sense (they’re both nebulous things that transmit bad health), whereas I honestly don’t see any semantic similarities between our “virus” and “man.” Moreover, you’re objectively wrong in that “virus” is the second declension nominative of “vir,” because “vir” is already that exact case (it’s an irregular noun, otherwise it would indeed end in -us).

@stephen_j_p haha, Cambridge gave him an honorary doctorate? I knew Oxford was superior (for the record, never been to either). I agree that he’s basically a Dadaist. He only deserves reading because he really does speak for a huge proportion of humanities/social sciences academics.

My criticism of Deconstruction goes something like this: if you take it seriously, why write? Why study? Why speak English? Why speak any language? Why wear clothes? Why not run through the streets, naked, daubed with motor oil, smashing windows and hitting people with a giant vegetable marrow, whilst yodeling?

I asked my Lit Crit prof (an Oxford man, btw) these questions (more or less, lol) and he pretty much admitted that people don’t take Derrida seriously, even those who claim to be his followers.

haha, Cambridge gave him an honorary doctorate? I knew Oxford was superior

Sheesh, leave my homeboy alone, haters!

Why not run through the streets, naked, daubed with motor oil, smashing windows and hitting people with a giant vegetable marrow, whilst yodeling?

That’s my ultimate goal in life. I’m making gradual progress.

@HailTheKing You totally got me there, it is an irregular verb and would be Vir or viri in the nominative plural.

You still haven’t disproven what i said other than offered your own opinion.

whereas I honestly don’t see any semantic similarities between our “virus” and “man."

Think of man objectively… Think about his negative impact. /our host is mother earth and we’ve left her barren and crippled.

That’s not how logic works. The scientific method begins with an assertion/theory, yes, but you need to test it and start coming up with results in its favour before there’s reason to believe it.

There are other ways of determining whether things are true other than the scientific method…
Especially when you are dealing with things like semantic influence; you need to invent NEW methods of deriving status. This is exactly what i mean is the difference between sanitary and unsanitary etymology. I’m well aware of the difficulties of phonetic change, i mean Hor became Eagle.

As for you telling me thats not how logic works…

WTF are you saying?! i didn’t say our Virus came from Vir- I said how its used today was influenced by the phonetic similarity Acknowledged by the arbitrator. In fact i’m being EXTREMELY logical by NOT saying: My theory is true. But rather wanting to collect more different types of evidence in order to back it up…

It would be illogical to do what you are saying and say:
“It is impossible for things to happen in any way i am unaware of.”

How am i not using the scientific method, when i want to develop a SEPARATE page for semantic anomalies and try to gather evidence for their existence? I’m glad you disagree, but i’m certainly not being illogical and the type of thinking you are demonstrating is illogical.

To me atheists are illogical and zealous faith hounds are illogical. Accept we don’t know everything so progress can be made.

English has SOOOO many semantic layers, you don’t find it at ALL possible someone that when Virus was being used in a different sense how ever many years ago, the person who used it may have had a dark sense of humor and love punning on sound similarities.
It certainly IS possible.

Like this Bright eyes line, this is how language can be warped and changed in an instant:

One for the weary, one for the malcontent.

as verbs one is weary from exhaustion, one is purely discontent.

as nouns weary is a joke on Viri, and means hero, malcontent is in stark contrast as being an ungrateful youth.

HTK words aren’t always strictly adhered to and preserved as they’re handed from generation to generation from peoples to peoples. They pick up influence from innumerable places.

Don’t start patronizing me because i’m trying to think creatively.

That’s not how logic works. The scientific method begins with an assertion/theory, yes, but you need to test it and start coming up with results in its favour before there’s reason to believe it.

ESPECIALLY when i never said “This is true” i said “this has plausibility”

@HailTheKing In what way does etymology/philology deal with ideas like the INFLUENCE of another word upon another word. Meaning virus was not derived from vir, rather influenced by similarity (again theory)

How does etymology handle those things? It seems to me they can’t.

So, we DATABASE semantic concepts and work off of that. Etymology is in the future now.
We can explore semantic influence in a controlled manner.

Also excuse me if i’m wrong but i believe modern etymology also states “There is no connection between good and evil and god and devil…”

Thats a load of crap!

@HailTheKing I realize i was actually pretty rude in my response, you weren’t patronizing (or at least weren’t trying to be) and i took slight offense to the choice of words. After thinking about it and looking back, i really do understand your point of view, you have taken philology classes and know about the pitfalls of commonalities. I am aware they are all too prevalent; and looking back I feel like a complete idiot because the “Virus” aspect I was relating to Vir was under the definition of a computer virus!!

This Virus, vir thing was a thought i had when i was 13 after seeing the matrix… I assumed he was talking about biological viruses, having never touched a computer i didn’t make the leap… which i just made now.

I absolutely concede on the virus vir, relation; BUT i wholly believe that things like this often go overlooked and are ruled out by the strictness; so as a compromise lets say instead of saying

“I want to use semantics to add more to etymology”

I will simply reverse it;

“I want to use Etymology to learn more about Semantics”

Perhaps once more is learned in one field i an switch it around again.

Anyone who argues with me will know I will switch sides often, hell i may switch back; i am bound to the amount of information i am privy to in the system.

(Thats why i like to be proven wrong, like right now; i was proven wrong by my own stupidity or in this case naivety.)

Believe it or not i’ve learned a lot from this experience, there was a shift in my subconscious and now my brain is focusing on etymological import to semantics rather than vice versa.