Explanation of the Information - Lemma One

OCKHAM

Jedi
Explanation of the Information: Lemma one

The lemma is the post position assistant that is secondary to the historical root. This position is contained within the band of alphabets made that have ends or space. The interpretation lays with the interpreter somewhere unknown until expressed. The post position (lemma) is a target and needs a better explanation.

First, the word lemma is actually Botany terminology describing two pair of husks that twirl inward creating a spikelet and referenced as ("to peel"). The definition of lemma tells us that it is from Greek lambanien, ("to take"), and labeled a subsidiary proposition. It is serving the same purpose as titles and themes. It may be important to refer to the lemma as lemma one to avoid division which may in fact help correct navigation phonologically, and psychologically.

Indo-European root sounds have assistants that help to determine the time illusion. They operate in variant ways applied directly to the listings that are readily available in many major libraries around the world. When you read these words, the portmandeau in the perception is laying at the base along with the assistant for each word. They are together, and will easily segregate at will. The assistant is also capable of morphological transformation when a root has a prefix, suffix, or other alteration compounded with the letters into one meaning.

The 3rd Edition American Heritage Dictionary provides us with many explanations about the meanings and derivatives along with the sources they have obtained them from. They base their work on standards such as "regularity of sound correspondence" where certain letters in the alphabet have been carried forward through the ages into modern languages. They also label the core roots as cognates which refers to "clan memberships" as labeled with a political connotation. This designates the factual destruction of the root language, as the words are modified by institutionalized organizational priority. This priority is fitted to the prevailing system. According to Calvert Watkins who contributed a lengthy article explanation of Indo-European origins, the alteration and distribution of vowels for accented purposes in the grammatical form endings, and the syntactical formations resulting are little short of astounding.

Proto-Indo-European languages were rich in stop consonants which would seemingly cause poor continuants in speaking to another to form full flowing sentences. There were silent letters, voiced letters, and murmured or humming type sounds that often ended with a puff of air or aspiration. The core roots when having a suffix added designated what is referred to as (stem). During the break up of the common language, the predominant stems from Indo-European heritage have evolved with the addition of the prefixes and (preverbs), such as Latin (ad-, con-, de-, and ex-), and Germanic (be-). Such compounded words if accurately portrayed represented two independent words still reflected in Hittite and older Sanskrit of the Vedas (sacred books of the ancient Hindus) and surviving in isolated remnants in Greek and Latin.

The art of combining member words brings forth the compositional essence of the Indo-Europeans, where one member modifies the second. Compounded words are also joined to form singular meanings, such as, Mstislav "famed for vengeance" or Bertram "bright raven". This method is also extended to family names as in (O)Toole, "having the people's valor". The semantic link must be held strong to the "indigen of the source", otherwise, the true meanings can begin to morph.

Language is a useful social factualization. A language "also rests in the abyss" and can be utilized in conjunction with outer space where contact occurs, vacuum or no vacuum. There is the illusion that culture has a face, and that you are turned toward it. This is arguable. Read from Calvert Watkins explanation about god from the ADH entitled, "Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans".

"Consider the case of religion. To form an idea of the religion of a people, archaeologists proceed by inference, examining temples, sanctuaries, idols, votive objects, funerary offerings, and material remains. But these may not be forthcoming; archaeology is, for example, of little or no utility in understanding the religion of the ancient Hebrews. Yet, for the Indo-European-speaking society, we can reconstruct with certainty the word "god," *deiw-os, and the two-word name of the chief deity of the pantheon, *dyeu pæter- (Latin Jūpiter, Greek Zeus patēr, Sanskrit *dyanus pitar- and Luvian Tatis Tiwaz). The forms *dyeu and *deiw-os are both derivatives of a root deiw-, meaning "to shine", which appears in the word for "day" in numerical languages (Latin diēs; but English DAY in not related). The notion of deity was therefore linked to the notion of the sky.

The second element of the name of the chief god, *dyeu-pæter-, is the general Indo-European word for father, used not in the sense of father as parent, but with the meaning of the adult male who is head of the household, the sense of Latin pater familias. For the Indo-Europeans the society of gods was conceived in image of their own society as patriarchal. The reconstructed words *deiw-os and *dyeu-pæter- alone tells us more about the conceptual world of the Indo-Europeans than a roomful of graven images."

Calvert Watkins makes the remark, "It is remarkable that by far the greater part of this reconstructed vocabulary is preserved in nature or borrowed derivatives in Modern English". The entire article from Mr. Watkins will be cataloged in time so that all may read it as it is priceless. The 3rd Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary also provides a "Guide to the Appendix" which is being transcribed into html when ready.

The divisions made in the derivative listings have been presented from the AHD in multiplication sequence adding to the problem of root understanding. Modern English has removed the rich infliction from the root language. It is an attempt to locate the bases without the assistant who holds the time clock. Examples of meanings for root relations have evolved into infinite alterations. The progressive alpha code is also part of the motion occurring in our perception. This may develop tendency. An attempt to overcome the excess morphological compounding is applied, a type of improved or tighter navigation, if brawn enough. This production of space can be researched further by visiting any local library that is available. The word listings that will be cataloged here have the information flow reduced as refinement from the (a) to (z) band when possible.

Derivative markers that reference other derivative section listings remain. Markings for flow reference using numbers are removed as numerical alterations and worming are evident. Words in italic with an asterisk prefixed are primary core roots recorded directly from available data. Italic words without asterisks are secondary core roots. Semi-colons previously used to separate listings are also removed to reduce division in the brain. Repetition of headings are reduced and referenced after the core root. (Sample: Germanic *inwarth, inward)

Designations for the word (from) are relocated and eliminated as a hyphen reference in the following sample. (Zero-grade- *wrt-, weird) This also shows a previous designation for addition that is now tagged to the alpha code versus the numerical code with the larger letter Z assisting as a limen. Previous words not designated as important derivatives are inserted into the sequenced listing rather than sectioned into areas that divide and add multiple processes cloaking the tighter navigation. Multiple derivative markings that overlay other groups are ordinarily not marked unless viewed directly in text descriptions. This has been improved by marking each word with a numerical code designation that shows multiple derivatives. Then, these are included at the end of the description. Core derivatives are normally also marked in italic, unless they also contain additional multiple derivatives in link with the same words. Samples: universe1-et-wer-2-, (universe2: oi-no-)

Words with multiple derivative markings that exceed two, will have an additional asterisk added after the numerical marking. Sample: tsimmes1*-et-de- (tsimmes2* en-, tsimmes3* bheid-) The numerical marking for multiple derivatives is a random guide and does designate power in priority, only correlative path which is part of doing the work in preparing the information. Of course, the abbreviation for etymology is nested between the marker and the band as: -et-. This location is a additional assistant that allows phonological bearing.

And finally, the references to Julius Pokorny's Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (Bern, 1959) provided by the AHD has been interpreted based on reference material in conjunction with navigators in full range. Constructs are based on material directly relevant to the English language. The value of the interpretations lays with the beholder and does not represent opinion. The ship is in your hands.

References for this article:
Calvert Watkins: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, page 2081 through 2090, AHD 3rd ed.
ISBN 0-395-44895-6 © 1996, 1992 by Houghton Miffin Company

In the zone: leman*-et-leubh- : lend*-et-leik-
lemon verbena: aromatic shrub (Aloysia triphylla) native to Argentina and Chile, cultivated for it fragrant foliage and flowers.
-corelator mark 04/04/2008
Note: Referenced root group for this article is forthcoming.
 
Holy Mary, Mother of God, Ockham! My brain hurts, and I've only read one third of your post.

When are you going to start writing in an externally considerate manner?

I find your explanations virtually impossible to follow. Have you truly written this for others' information, or for your own self-aggrandisement?

It looks to me that there are some very interesting ideas buried in your posts, but I have had enough of trying to dig them out of the mire.

fwiw
 
mada85 said:
Holy Mary, Mother of God, Ockham! My brain hurts, and I've only read one third of your post.

When are you going to start writing in an externally considerate manner?
Seriously, dude.

Ockham, let's start with this, as part of the unravelling process: Try to summarize in two (non-run-on) sentences or less -- and in clear, simple, and straightforward language -- the point you were trying to make in your post, and its relevance to this forum.
 
mada85 and PepperFritz,

Thanks for your opinion on this piece. Please try to understand that this information is based directly on the material in the dictionary, and it is not my place to make assumptions, but to accurately portray the information. This information can be simplified if you would ask a more specific question. I am more than happy to consider anything you say, but also it is not always my place to assume the suggestions that would be made.

By elaboration, it begins to morph, and the cause to search this is about truth. By your form of consideration for others, the information changes and becomes less valuable, as some truth is removed. I am happy to elaborate but remember, I am only one person and bv no means someone who claims authority by not considering others.

This environment is still a school and rules apply.
 
Ockham said:
This environment is still a school and rules apply.
To what rules are you referring, Ockham? Why do you write this as if this is your school? What is really going on with you lately - your posts are becoming more and more unintelligible and self-important. In short, you are injecting an astonishing amount of noise onto this forum and appear to be in some sort of downward spiral, as if you are losing touch with reality.
 
Ockham, it seems you have quite a problem with external considering. You write:

Ockham said:
By your form of consideration for others, the information changes and becomes less valuable, as some truth is removed.
and

O said:
I am only one person and by no means someone who claims authority by not considering others
You are implying that 'my form' of consideration for others necessarily involves some dilution of 'truth', content or idea density.

External considering means that the writer considers both how their material will be received, and whether it will be understood, by their intended audience. This does not necessarily give rise to dilution of content. External considering also means that the writer considers grammar, spelling, punctuation and presentation, if said writer wishes their writings to be read and understood.

On this forum you will find some models of clarity of writing and external considering; virtually anything written by Anart or Laura is an object lesson in these areas. I say 'virtually' because I haven't read everything they have written, but everything I have read displays clarity and external considering with no dilution of content.

Ockham said:
Please try to understand that this information is based directly on the material in the dictionary
Now you are trying to hide behind a flimsy justification for your lack of external considering. It's not poor Ockham's fault that the presentation of this information makes the reader's brain hurt after three paragraphs.

Ockham said:
and it is not my place to make assumptions, but to accurately portray the information
Presenting information clearly, with your readers in mind, is not 'making assumptions'.

O said:
This information can be simplified if you would ask a more specific question.
It doesn't need to be simplified; the problem lies not with the information, but with your presentation.

O said:
By elaboration, it begins to morph,
If that is the case, and you are aware of it, why can't you keep your writing under control and to the point?

O said:
By your form of consideration for others, the information changes and becomes less valuable, as some truth is removed.
See above.

O said:
I am happy to elaborate but remember,
You are confusing elaboration with elegant presentation. The latter does not mean simplification or 'dumbing down'. It is an outcome of external considering, imho.

O said:
I am […] bv no means someone who claims authority by not considering others.
Actually, Ockham, your post gives me precisely the opposite impression.

And here is your slap on my wrist for daring to question your communication skills:

Ockham said:
This environment is still a school and rules apply.
Well, one of the school's rules is:

SOTT Forum rules said:
* Maximization of the signal to noise ratio
 
OCKHAM said:
This information can be simplified if you would ask a more specific question.
How can you even formulate a specific question if most of what was written (except for some parts where you seem to be quoting from elsewhere) is incomprehensible word salad? The only specific question I can think of is, can you rephrase your first paragraph (to start with) in a way that most people would understand it?
OCKHAM said:
Please try to understand that this information is based directly on the material in the dictionary, and it is not my place to make assumptions, but to accurately portray the information.
You can't call something information if nobody understands a word of it. It does not inform anyone of anything.
OCKHAM said:
By elaboration, it begins to morph, and the cause to search this is about truth. By your form of consideration for others, the information changes and becomes less valuable, as some truth is removed. I am happy to elaborate but remember, I am only one person and bv no means someone who claims authority by not considering others.
I don't even understand what you just said in your reply!

OCKHAM said:
This environment is still a school and rules apply.
Yeah, like speaking coherently, or at least trying to. It would probably make far more sense if you didn't paraphrase any of it and just copied directly from the dictionary. By putting it in your own words, the information has lost all meaning, and so no one can benefit from it.
 
PepperFritz said:
Try to summarize in two (non-run-on) sentences or less -- and in clear, simple, and straightforward language -- the point you were trying to make in your post, and its relevance to this forum.
Ockham, it is extremely telling that you are not only unable to fulfill this simple request, but refuse to even attempt to do so. I can only conclude that you did not wish to communicate anything of particular value or importance to others by your post, and that it was no more than an exercise in verbal masturbation for your own gratification. The lesson I take from this is to henceforth not waste any more energy trying to comprehend your posts than you are willing to expend to clarify them.
 
Your insults are overbearing. I have just returned. How can you assume I am always here? Am I not allowed to sleep? How insulting!

Please delete this post moderator and the entire thread if necessary. This article was only a test.
Maybe I have failed according to your standards. Maybe we should ask others what they think?

Where is the external consideration on your part PepperFritz? You cannot externally consider other by insulting them. If you are only going to insult me, where can we begin?
 
OCKHAM said:
Your insults are overbearing. I have just returned. How can you assume I am always here? Am I not allowed to sleep? How insulting!
Umm... where exactly did anyone say you weren't allowed to get any sleep, and/or were expected to always be online?

OCKHAM said:
Please delete this post moderator and the entire thread if necessary. This article was only a test.
A test of what? Forum members? Seeing who was susceptible to being manipulated into supplying food for Ockham's self-importance?

OCKHAM said:
Maybe I have failed according to your standards. Maybe we should ask others what they think?
Others?!? Who? Paris Hilton? Hugo Chavez? Mordechai Vanunu? Hillary Clinton? Anyone reading this thread is able to respond if they so choose, and no less that four people have told you that you are not being understood. Rather than attempting to adjust your style of communication, your self-importance is pricked and you start ranting about being "insulted" and how the article was just a "test". And in another thread you post a photo of an unexpected white dot that appeared on a photo you took, and you claim it's a UFO?!? This sounds like somewhat paranoid behaviour to me. Are you under greater than usual stress at the moment? What's going on?

OCKHAM said:
Where is the external consideration on your part PepperFritz? You cannot externally consider other by insulting them. If you are only going to insult me, where can we begin?
"Only going to insult me"?!? Maybe you need a holiday. Less time on the computer, and more time outside?
 
OCKHAM said:
Where is the external consideration on your part PepperFritz? You cannot externally consider other by insulting them. If you are only going to insult me, where can we begin?
It was not my intention to insult you. My last post to you reflects frustration at your refusal to clarify the meaning and purpose of your post, after repeated requests by both myself and others. One tends to "turn up the volume" after polite and measured requests are ignored and/or dismissed.
 
OCKHAM said:
Your insults are overbearing. I have just returned. How can you assume I am always here? Am I not allowed to sleep? How insulting!
Stop pretending to be "insulted" and using that as an excuse to offer no answers to all those who have asked for them. PepperFritz asked for a simple summary, and you replied that you'd be "happy to elaborate" - but offered no elaboration, no summary, not even an attempt at one. Instead you offered more noise and some cryptic references to some set of "rules" that appear to be your own rules, not those of this forum. You are allowed to "sleep" Ockham, if that is your choice. It's just unfortunate, that's all.

OCKHAM said:
Please delete this post moderator and the entire thread if necessary. This article was only a test.
I cannot speak for a moderator, but I actually think that although what you posted is noise and may fit better in the baked noodles section, this thread has a different kind of importance and I for one would vote to keep it. Something is going on with you, a member of this forum who used to make sense and used to offer insightful and easy to understand input on different subjects. As Anart mentioned, it is really bigger than just this post, as this has been an ongoing pattern with you recently. So it would help to offer an explanation as to why that is.

Also, can you explain what you mean by "it was only a test"?

OCKHAM said:
Maybe I have failed according to your standards. Maybe we should ask others what they think?
OCKHAM, others already voiced what they think and asked you various questions, why not address them?

OCKHAM said:
You cannot externally consider other by insulting them.
Is the truth an insult? Which part of PepperFritz's post was not true?

OCKHAM said:
If you are only going to insult me, where can we begin?
"We" have already began, it is you who chooses to use any excuse to ignore everyone who has been asking you for an explanation. You even went as far as suggesting this thread be deleted, to make all these questions just disappear perhaps? Well, even if it was deleted, that still leaves all the other threads where you were similarly cryptic and incomprehensible recently. What's going on?
 
Ockham said:
Your insults are overbearing. I have just returned. How can you assume I am always here? Am I not allowed to sleep? How insulting!

Please delete this post moderator and the entire thread if necessary. This article was only a test.
Maybe I have failed according to your standards. Maybe we should ask others what they think?

Where is the external consideration on your part PepperFritz? You cannot externally consider other by insulting them. If you are only going to insult me, where can we begin?
Gosh, Ockham, you're really lashing out here. Is this solely because you were called on the incomprehensibility of your posts? It's interesting that you seem to be able to write quite clearly when your self importance is provoked.

Anart said:
What is really going on with you lately…?
Ryan said:
Are you under greater than usual stress at the moment? What's going on?
SAO said:
What's going on?
After reading these three people's concern for your well-being and mental state, I checked out some of your earlier posts. As little as seven months ago you were posting material that was easy to read and understand, in marked contrast to your posts of the last few days.

So, Ockham, I join with those listed above in asking: what's going on? What has happened to you in the past few weeks?
 
Thanks PepperFritz,

You said,

It was not my intention to insult you.
It was that you implied an insult by assuming I was ignoring you. I am a very busy person also, and will always reply, but please understand, I must fit this into my schedule. You imply that I have made a violation of some sort with you based on your personal frustrations. In order for people to speak to one another, it is good to be courteous even if the person who are attempting to speak to is considerrd pre-classified by you or does not fit into your schedule.

You also imply that I have used emotions, I was only clarify that emotions become overbearing because you seem to use them readily, as you said, frustration. At this website of which I have spent a couple of years only, one of the things I have learned is how to control the emotions.

To clarify the original post for you is simple. It is a test, we all have them everyday. The information may not be written well enough for you, and please don't compare me to Laura, as her work is far more important, and has helped to make a big difference for people for many years. I am not attempting to be like her or anyone else.

This article is to clarify how to interpret the sequenced derivatives that we are attempting to share with you for free. I work all day and all night to do this. We are unsure as to how this information should be presented, so an article was written to help explain it as a test, or a kind of experiment to see how people will react to linguistics, of which are no picnic, and might be too much for those who don't see the importance in them.

ScioAgapeOmnis,

In your last post you imply that I ignore you. I am here. Most of what you have said makes no sense, and you also imply I have a problem based on facts you have created by throwing around emotions like basketball. Slow down here a bit. I have no intention of taking your post and throwing them at you, this is a process of nonsense.

We need to grow up and ask straightforward questions.

Mada85, Nothing has happened to me in the last few weeks as you have implied. I am doing quite well.
 
OCKHAM said:
We need to grow up and ask straightforward questions.
I will endeavour to be even more straightforward than I have been up to now (if that is possible):

I do not understand the following sentence.
Can you please explain it in plainer language?
Does anyone else reading this thread understand the following sentence?
If so, could you please attempt to explain it to me?

OCKHAM said:
"This article is to clarify how to interpret the sequenced derivatives that we are attempting to share with you for free".



I asked you to clarify the meaning and purpose of your original post. You initially claimed that this could not be done, as

OCKHAM said:
By elaboration, it begins to morph, and the cause to search this is about truth. By your form of consideration for others, the information changes and becomes less valuable, as some truth is removed.
But now you tell me that such clarification is in fact "simple":

OCKHAM said:
To clarify the original post for you is simple. It is a test, we all have them everyday.... an article was written to help explain it as a test, or a kind of experiment to see how people will react to linguistics, of which are no picnic, and might be too much for those who don't see the importance in them.
Yet you have still not "clarified the original post" for me in any way, shape, or form. It is evident that everyone who has read and responded to your original post does not understand the meaning and/or purpose of it any more than I do, and are just as baffled by it. So... according to your reasoning, have we ALL "failed" your "test"? If so, who benefits from this "test", seeing as no one except yourself appears to understand it?
 
Back
Top Bottom