Explanation of the Information - Lemma One

[Renaissance]

Hi OCKHAM, it appears you have completely shut down and blocked out everything you do not want to hear. Perhaps this comes from the investment in time you've put into your initial post and the value you attach to it; perhaps it's something else. What is clear is that you do not have the control over your emotions you think you do. The self importance and imaginative deflections in your posts are overwhelmingly in control of you. You are certainly not approaching this as an adult, meanwhile you tell others to 'grow up'.

You also said 'we' several times referring to your posts. Is 'OCKHAM' a group with different people writing under the same username?

 

[anart]

Mada85, Nothing has happened to me in the last few weeks as you have implied. I am doing quite well.

If that is the case, then the situation is more unfortunate than I had originally surmised, because your writing indicates a break with reality. You have referred to yourself as 'we' on several occasions - you are nonsensical, emotionally belligerent and quite 'off the handle'.

Quite frankly, if this is 'doing quite well' for you, it is, perhaps, time for you to move along to another forum that welcomes such nonsensical, belligerent and confusing posts - this forum does not.

If, on the other hand, you (how ever many of 'you' there are) - are currently suffering from some sort of breakdown, then a temporary break from the forum might be a better option than permanent removal.

 

[name]

Why bash on OCKAM ?

What does external consideration have to do with ones own inability to understand what is being said, in short, with ones own lack of knowledge in the subject matter ? The post is difficult to read, true, but it is interesting nonetheless as far as I can follow it.

Let's remember that this (new) forum is about linguistics, a subject-matter foreign to must of us, myself included, so it should not be a shame to concede that one does not know what is being spoken about. I've had contact with linguists in the past (and I assume you are one, OCKAM), and I've always found it fascinating and at the same time hermetic to listen to a pair of them diving into a universe of knowledge, concepts and terms so foreign and seemingly unreachable.

Should OCKAMs post not be a motivation to try to understand what he says instead of bashing upon him because one does not understand what he intend to say ? For starters, he has a website which gives some context to what is said above (at least to me). And then, the Internet is vast and offers enough good material to anyone motivated enough to get up to speed.

IMO bashing on somebody for saying something one does not understand says more about those who are doing the bashing than about the victim. Isn't this exactly what mobbing is all about, and what should not take place here, as far as I understand the rules ? Ok, enough of that.

I always though about a lemma as a side-statement in a mathematical proof and found it weird to read that is is a botanical term, so i decided to look it up. True, its used in mathe, but then (dict.cc) gives me "flowering glume" as a synonym And lets not forget either that mathe uses other 'botanical' terms, for example "corollary", "stem", ... - possibly a hint to how mathematicians (and physicists ?) think about their thought constructs, namely as something alive, growing, flowering. Mathe can indeed be written in a very flowery language

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 labelled with a political connotation. This designates the factual destruction of the root language, as the words are modified by institutionalized organizational priority.
...

(Emphasis above mine) I understand this paragraph as describing concisely how linguists think that the "common language" has been destroyed and misrepresented/misinterpreted along the course of time to correspond to institutional and political priorities - what is, IIRC, one of the recurring themes on this board and website. Could you please expand upon this, OCKAM (or correct me) ?

@OCKAM
- After initial reading, I think that in later paragraphs, after your allusion to Calvin-Watkins and AHD, you are describing the method how language was/is being corrupted in context of the English language (correct me ?). It would help towards intelligibility if you edited your post so as to place the single steps in a bulleted list

- I've looked a bit into your website, not easy to understand

@Mods
- Please DO NOT delete this very interesting post (and thread) by OCKAM. Thanks

 

[mada85]

Why bash on OCKAM ?

Name, I think you've got a 'stand up for the underdog' program running here. I don't see any 'Ockham bashing' going on. I do see that Ockham was called on his or her lack of consideration for his/her readers, and I see some concern for Ockham's mental and/or physical state.

Here are two explanations of 'lemma'. The first is from Ockham's post, the second is assembled from various Wikipedia entries:

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.

In linguistics a lemma (plural lemmas or lemmata) is the canonical form of a lexeme.
[…]
In morphology, a lemma is the canonical form of a lexeme. Lexeme, in this context, refers to the set of all the forms that have the same meaning, and lemma refers to the particular form that is chosen by convention to represent the lexeme. Lemmas have special significance in highly inflected languages such as Czech. In this sense, a lemma can also be called a citation form. The process of determining the lemma for a given word is called lemmatisation. (1)

A lexeme is an abstract unit of morphological analysis in linguistics, that roughly corresponds to a set of words that are different forms of the same word. For example, in the English language, run, runs, ran and running are forms of the same lexeme, conventionally written as RUN. A related concept is the lemma (or citation form), which is a particular form of a lexeme that is chosen by convention to represent a canonical form of a lexeme. Lemmas are used in dictionaries as the headwords, and other forms of a lexeme are often listed later in the entry if they are unusual in some way. (2)

Morphology is the field of linguistics that studies the internal structure of words. (3)

In linguistics the citation form of a word can mean:
* its canonical form or lemma: the form of an inflected word given in dictionaries or glossaries, thus also called the dictionary form.
* its strong form or isolation form: the way it is pronounced when spoken carefully and in isolation. (4)

See below for Wikipedia page URLs.

canonical
conforming to a general rule; orthodox
Penguin English Dictionary

Now, seriously, which explanation is easier to understand?

Let's remember that this (new) forum is about linguistics, a subject-matter foreign to must of us, myself included, so it should not be a shame to concede that one does not know what is being spoken about.

The point of all this is that the author, if he or she wishes their work to be read and understood, and they wish to impart knowledge to others, MUST write clearly. This can be done, even with difficult, abstruse subjects. Surely the author bears some responsibility for ensuring that their work can be understood? And, by posting to a non-technical forum such as this, and knowing that the work will be read by people who want to understand, but may lack the academic or technical background, it is incumbent upon the author to take extra care to ensure readability and the greatest possible ease of understanding.

Wikipedia pages consulted:
(1) _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemma_%28linguistics%29
(2) _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexeme
(3) _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29
(4) _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_form

 

[Ryan]

Why bash on OCKAM ?

What does external consideration have to do with ones own inability to understand what is being said, in short, with ones own lack of knowledge in the subject matter ? The post is difficult to read, true, but it is interesting nonetheless as far as I can follow it.

Let's remember that this (new) forum is about linguistics, a subject-matter foreign to must of us, myself included, so it should not be a shame to concede that one does not know what is being spoken about. I've had contact with linguists in the past (and I assume you are one, OCKAM), and I've always found it fascinating and at the same time hermetic to listen to a pair of them diving into a universe of knowledge, concepts and terms so foreign and seemingly unreachable.

You are missing the crux of the matter completely. It's not about "bashing" Ockham (loaded word there, much?) but rather asking him to address the fact that multiple people have found his recent posts to be virtually incomprehensible. That the thread happens to be about linguistics is irrelevant (although somewhat ironic).

And I've found Ockham's selection of what questions and people he responds to (not to mention his references to "we") to be somewhat disturbing. I think it would be good for everyone concerned if Ockham took a little time off from the forum and did some self-evaluation.

 

[OCKHAM]

name,

Thanks for your interesting reply. There are many replies here in long waves, so please allow me to consume.

I always though about a lemma as a side-statement in a mathematical proof and found it weird to read that is is a botanical term, so i decided to look it up. True, its used in mathe, but then (dict.cc) gives me "flowering glume" as a synonym

Flowering gloom hey, wow, that almost blew me away. To help answer some of your comments, please know that I am not a linguist, but one who studies this area. We, as in all of us, are attempting to expand our horizons and learn, so for others, please note that the word [we] means us. We are all in the same boat it seems.

The linguistic section obviously was create by [not me], so there is an [us] in the picture. I am unsure as to why someone who think I would not be associated with the forum, strange. Your suggestions about the bullets has been noted and may indeed be a good idea.

nonsensical, belligerent and confusing posts

Anart, please provide information as to how I have been belligerent and explain, as I have always replied, and attempted to answer anyone who wanted me to say something. I did this in best time I had available. I do not use foul language or take others words, attach emotions to them, and throw them out to the wolves. This is much more confusing then anything I have said. Could you please explain?

Being belligerent is the opposite of what I have done.

Belligerent: Inclined to fight, hostile, to wage war, warlike : Bellum, war + gerere, to make

After reading the definition of belligerent, we seem to have an anomaly here, wouldn't you agree?

Also, when reading PepperFritz's comments where an attempt is made to twist the issue about whether or not every single word I used is validated through some kind of unknown system, it really does look strange.

The comment are indeed belligerent, an attempt to make war with little words. Actually, they bring along emotions held deep within about personal views which according to the rules set forth in this forum, violate this order.

I am not attempting to share my personal views. We were attempting to collect information, document it as accurately as possible, and share this with others. How on this blooming earth is that being belligerent?

I am at a complete loss to answer confusing and truly nonsensical implications that demand a compliance that's imaginary.

The word we is not a word that would require a vacation. Excuse me, but has everyone gone nuts?

 

[Meg]

The point of all this is that the author, if he or she wishes their work to be read and understood, and they wish to impart knowledge to others, MUST write clearly. This can be done, even with difficult, abstruse subjects. Surely the author bears some responsibility for ensuring that their work can be understood? And, by posting to a non-technical forum such as this, and knowing that the work will be read by people who want to understand, but may lack the academic or technical background, it is incumbent upon the author to take extra care to ensure readability and the greatest possible ease of understanding.

I agree completely. I re-read the thread and I think the First Vision of the forum in the forum rules applies here. The reasons that they are asking you to clarify and are questioning your unintelligible posts aren't imaginary osit.

First our Vision for this forum: to create an environment for the stimulation, development and then the alignment of objective consciousnesses as defined and described by Georges Gurdjieff.

"So that we can imagine the whole of humanity, known as well as unknown to us, as consisting so to speak of several concentric circles.

"The inner circle is called the 'esoteric'; this circle consists of people who have attained the highest development possible for man, each one of whom possesses individuality in the fullest degree, that is to say, an indivisible 'I,' all forms of consciousness possible for man, full control over these states of consciousness, the whole of knowledge possible for man, and a free and independent will. They cannot perform actions opposed to their understanding or have an understanding which is not expressed by actions. At the same time there can be no discords among them, no differences of understanding. Therefore their activity is entirely co-ordinated and leads to one common aim without any kind of compulsion because it is based upon a common and identical understanding.

"The next circle is called the 'mesoteric,' that is to say, the middle. People who belong to this circle possess all the qualities possessed by the members of the esoteric circle with the sole difference that their knowledge is of a more theoretical character.' This refers, of course, to knowledge of a cosmic character. They know and understand many things which have not yet found expression in their actions. They know more than they do. But their understanding is precisely as exact as, and therefore precisely identical with, the understanding of the people of the esoteric circle. Between them there can be, no discord, there can be no misunderstanding. One understands in the way they all understand, and all understand in the way one understands. But as was said before, this understanding compared with the understanding of the esoteric circle is somewhat more theoretical.

"The third circle is called the 'exoteric,' that is, the outer, because it is the outer circle of the inner part of humanity. The people who belong to this circle possess much of that which belongs to people of the esoteric and mesoteric circles but their cosmic knowledge is of a more philosophical character, that is to say, it is more abstract than the knowledge of the mesoteric circle. A member of the mesoteric circle calculates, a member of the exoteric circle contemplates. Their understanding may not be expressed in actions. But there cannot be differences in understanding between them. What one understands all the others understand.

Understanding is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object, such as, person, situation, or message whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object.

Excuse me, but has everyone gone nuts?

Nope. Other forum members aren't understanding your posts and asking questions about what is going on with you.

We were attempting to collect information, document it as accurately as possible, and share this with others.

Wouldn't it be externally considerate to change/edit your initial post to something more understandable so you can share it in a way others (us) can understand it?

 

[OCKHAM]

I'm here again, no vacation. No war.

Here are the derivatives that were referenced for this post. Again, please understand these are the words we use to communicate with others and hold many secrets. Those secrets should be released one way or another, as there are many people who would love to see them and have a heart about the matter, and do not want to start wars. Whether that is you or not, will only depend on you. If you do not understand what Pokornist interpretations are, please study any dictionary where additional information is available.

This group is named Vera and represents a large worm called wer-2-. The bold is my emphasis.

66-anniversary1-avert-adverse-briar-controversy-converge-converse-convert-dextrorse-divert-
evert-extrose-extroversion-introrse1-invert-inward-malversation1-obvert-pervert-prose-raphe-raphide-
retrorse-reverberate-revert-rhabdomancy-rhabdovirus-rhapsody1-rhombus-sinistrorse-staphylorrhaphy-stalwart-subvert-
tenorrhaphy-tergivesate-transverse-universe1-vermicelli-vermi-vermicular-vermin-versatile-verse-
version-vertebra-verst-versus-vertex-vertigo-vermeil-vortex-worm-worry-worth-wrangle-wrap-
wrath-wreath-wrench-wrestle-wrinkle-writhe-wring-wrist-wrong-wry-et-wer-2- FROM OUTWARD FORMED BASED STRUCTURE, (convention, political): Indo-European- to turn, bend, Root- *wert-, to turn, wind, -WARD from Old English -weard, toward, (< "turned toward"), Old English- inweard, inward from Germanic *inwarth, inward (*in, in, see en-), Old English- weorth, worth, valuable, and derivative noun wierth, value, Germanic derivative *werthaz, "toward, opposite," hence "equivalent worth" perhaps from same Germanic source (*werth-), Old English- weorthan, to befall from Germanic *werthan, to become, (< "to turn into"), Zero-grade- *wrt-, weird, Old English- wyrd, fate, destiny, (< " that which befalls one"), Germanic- *wurthi-, BOULEVERSEMENT, EXTROVERT, INTROVERT, Latin- vertere, versāre, to turn, versārī, to stay, behave, (< "to move around a place, frequent"), Russian- versta, line, Balto-Slavic- *wristā, a turn, bend. Root- *wreit-, to turn, Old English- writha, band, (< "that which is wound around"), Old English- wrīthan, to twist, torture, Old English- wrāth, angry, (< "tormented, twisted"), sourced Germanic- *wrīth-, *wrath-, Root- *wergh-, to turn, Old English- wrygan, to strangle, Germanic- *wurgjan, Nasalized variant *wrengh-, Old English- wringan, to twist, Germanic- *wreng-, Middle English- wrong, Scandinavian source akin to Old Norse- *vrangr, rangr, curved, crooked, wrong, Middle English- wranglen, to wrangle, Low German source akin to wrangeln, to wrestle, roots sourced from *wrang-, Root- *werg-, to turn, Nasalized variant form *wreng-, Old English- *wrencan, wrench, to twist, Old English- gewrinclian, wrinkle, to wind, (ge-, collective prefix, see kom-), roots sourced Germanic- *wrankjen, Root- *wreik-, to turn, Old English- wrīgian, wry, to turn, Middle Low German- wriggelen, to wriggle, sourced Germanic- *wrīg-, Old French- wrist, Old, French- guitre, gaiter, from Frankish *wrist-, sourced Germanic- *wristiz, from *wrihst-, Old English- wræstan, to twist sourced subsidiary *wraistjan, wrestle, Possible o-grade *wroik-, briar, (BRUSQUE), from Late Latin- brūcus, heather, Gaulish *brūko-, RIBALD, Old French- riber, to be wanton, -sourced Germanic- *wrib-, Root- *werb-, also *werbh-, to turn, bend, Old English- weorpan, warp, to throw away, -sourced Germanic- *werp, *warp, "to fling by turning the arm", Latin- verber, reverberate, whip, rod, Latin- verbēna, verbena, sacred foliage, (VERVAIN), Zero-grade- *wrb-, Greek- rhabdos, rod, Nasalized variant *wrembh-, Greek- rhombus, magic wheel, Root- *werp-, to turn, wind, metathesized form *wrep, wrap, Middle English- wrappen, to wrap, source akin to Danish dialectal vravle, to wind, -sourced Germanic- *wrap-, Zero-grade- *wrp-, sourced Greek- rhaptein, to sew, Root- *wrmi-, unexpected worm rhyme to kwrmi-, Old English- wyrm, -sourced Germanic- *wurmiz, Latin Latin- vermis, worm, miss minister of more than*, legerdemain claimed legit*, flowering gloom*

(anniversary1 : at-) ( introrse1 : en-) ( malversation1 : mel-3-)
(rhapsody1 : wed-2-) (universe1 : oi-no-)

 

[mada85]

This is really bizarre, Ockham. It seems that you have left the real world and are now dwelling in some imaginary 'other sphere' where everything that has been said to you is filtered through a kind of lens that shuts out anything that you do not agree with.

You asked Anart:

Anart, please provide information as to how I have been belligerent

You offered the following definition of belligerent, without giving your source:

Belligerent: Inclined to fight, hostile, to wage war, warlike : Bellum, war + gerere, to make

However, here is another definition, from the Penguin English Dictionary, 2003 edition:

belligerent
An aggressive or truculent attitude, atmosphere or disposition.

and

truculent
Aggressively defiant, sullen or antagonistic.

So, what do you make of the attitude expressed in the following…

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?

…which you wrote yesterday.

And what are we (and you) to make of the fact that you have ignored all requests for clarification of your material?

Excuse me, but has everyone gone nuts?

It seems to be the other way round, not to mention that you seem to be suffering from semantic aphasia.

For example:

The word we is not a word that would require a vacation.

Which can be read as:

The word we is not a word that would require a holiday.

Huh?? Is that really what you meant to say?

Thanks for your interesting reply. There are many replies here in long waves, so please allow me to consume.

Consume? I've tried to imagine what you mean, but I give up! Did you really mean that you want to consume the replies?

consume

1. to ingest (food or drink)
2. to be a customer for (goods or services)
3. to use or use up (a fuel or other resource)
4. said esp of fire: to destroy (something) completely
5. (usu in passive) said of an emotion, esp an unworthy one: to obsess the heart or mind of (somebody): She was consumed with jealousy.

Penguin English Dictionary, 2003 edition

 

[Peam]

If you do not understand what Pokornist interpretations are, please study any dictionary where additional information is available.

Ochham, I've searched for the word 'Pokornist' on meriam webster and dictionary.com and that word isn't known there.
I googled the word and all it came up with was your use of it in another thread on this forum.
Can you explain that, or have I made a mistake somewhere?

 

[name]

@mada85
I now see your (and Anarts and ...) point. I was not aware of ...

And re "standing up for the underdog program", yes, definitely, but I had never seen it as a program but rather as a natural impulse.

A worm called "Vera" and ending in "flowering gloom", what can I say ? Weird things truly exist

OCKAM: Peace ...

@Peam: "Pokornist interpretation" , me too

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

The linguistic section obviously was create by [not me], so there is an [us] in the picture.

There is an "us" on this forum, but your usage of "we" had nothing to do with this. For example:

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

Here it would make absolutely no sense if "we" meant other forum members including yourself. No, here "we" is some strange plural reference to yourself, and "you" is the reference to the readers, that is, the rest of the forum. Nobody else but you are trying to "clarify how to interpret the sequenced derivatives" right now.

Anart, please provide information as to how I have been belligerent and explain, as I have always replied, and attempted to answer anyone who wanted me to say something.

This is belligerent:

Your insults are overbearing. I have just returned. How can you assume I am always here? Am I not allowed to sleep? How insulting!

You're completely mis-interpreting what PepperFritz was saying, you're acting like you've just been attacked in some way, and you're so focused on your own illusory victimization and self-importance that you, most likely intentionally, ignore all the important points and questions that have been asked of you. Your only answer to all those questions was a very short, "the article was only a test", which is a very vague and meaningless yet cryptic reply. If you think this answer constitutes an adequate and reasonable explanation, you're much farther gone than I realized. But more probable is that you said that intentionally to goad others to ask the obvious - just what on earth does that mean? Looks to me like you're now "playing a game", at least, this seems more plausible than considering that you're just that far out of touch with reality right now.

I did this in best time I had available. I do not use foul language or take others words, attach emotions to them, and throw them out to the wolves.

Yes, you do:

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.

I am throwing my emotions around like a basketball? How is that for an example of attaching emotions to the words of others, and then instead of addressing the actual content of the posts you essentially "throw them out to the wolves". Curious how you are, almost word for word, describing exactly what you have been doing every time you say "this is what I don't do".

We need to grow up and ask straightforward questions.
[...]
The comment are indeed belligerent, an attempt to make war with little words. Actually, they bring along emotions held deep within about personal views which according to the rules set forth in this forum, violate this order.

This is coming from someone who threw a hissy fit and stomped his foot in righteous indignation because someone pointed out that you have no intention to communicate? In addition you are projecting - all the qualities you're right now attributing to other forum members, you are exhibiting practically verbatim.

I am at a complete loss to answer confusing and truly nonsensical implications that demand a compliance that's imaginary.

Just as before, when you want to see confusing and truly nonsensical, please read your first post. Not that your other posts, including the above sentence made much sense either.

The word we is not a word that would require a vacation. Excuse me, but has everyone gone nuts?

Finally, you have demonstrated the crux of the matter. To the one who has gone nuts, it is everyone else who has gone nuts.

And as mada mentioned, that whole thing with "consuming" our replies is just creepy, but it goes hand-in-hand with my hypothesis that you're playing a game - whether consciously or not. You've been dissociated lately - left hand really had no idea what the right one was doing.

 

[mada85]

And re "standing up for the underdog program", yes, definitely, but I had never seen it as a program but rather as a natural impulse.

I think it can be both a program and a natural impulse, depending on circumstances. In this instance, Ockham was not being 'bashed' and so 'standing up for the underdog' was a program, since it ran in you without your discernment.

Which makes me wonder if Ockham isn't enjoying all this attention he/she is getting, behaving like the vampiric 'sweet little mist', standing by the roadside all lost, forlorn and pitiful, and waiting to be rescued (as described in Barbara Hort's book, 'Unholy Hungers'). After all, many people have expended a great deal of effort in talking to Ockham, on this and other threads, yet nothing has changed.

*****************************
Added:

Looks to me like you're now "playing a game", at least, this seems more plausible than considering that you're just that far out of touch with reality right now.
[…]
And as mada mentioned, that whole thing with "consuming" our replies is just creepy, but it goes hand-in-hand with my hypothesis that you're playing a game - whether consciously or not.

Seems that SAO arrived at pretty much the same conclusion while I was composing my reply…and Ockham's game is to trigger 'rescue' programs in forum members, then to consume all the attention he/she is being given.

*****************************

Pokornist derives from Julius Pokorny:

Julius Pokorny (12 June 1887 – 8 April 1970) was a scholar of the Celtic languages, particularly Irish, and a supporter of Irish nationalism. He was born in Prague and studied at the University of Vienna, where he also taught from 1913 to 1920. From 1920 to 1935, he held the chair of Celtic philology at Friedrich Wilhelm University in Berlin, before the Nazis discovered that, in spite of being a German nationalist, he was of Jewish descent.

He was the editor of the important journal Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie before World War II, and was responsible for reviving it afterwards.

He emigrated to Switzerland in 1943, where he taught for a few years at the University of Berne and at the University of Zürich until his retirement in 1959. In 1954, he received an honorary professorship at Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, where he taught part-time in 1956 and again from 1960 to 1965. He is the author of the Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (Indo-European Etymological Dictionary; 1959) which is still widely used today. He died in Zürich in 1970 almost three weeks after being hit by a tram not far from his home.

(_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Pokorny)

The Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch ("The Indo-European Etymological Dictionary") is an updated and slimmed-down reworking of the three-volume Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen of Alois Walde and Julius Pokorny (1927-32) by the Austrian-German comparative linguist and Celtic languages expert Julius Pokorny, that was published in 1959. Both of these works aim to provide an overview of the lexical knowledge accumulated until the early 20th century, but with only stray comments on the structure of individual forms. The newer work is now slightly outdated, especially as it was conservative even at the time Pokorny wrote it, ignoring the laryngeal theory, and hardly including any Tocharian or Anatolian material. But there until 2000 existed no more modern and updated etymological dictionary of the Indo-European languages, so it was of interest to scholars until arrival of Indogermanisches Wörterbuch by Gerhard Köbler.

(_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indogermanisches_Etymologisches_W%C3%B6rterbuch)

 

[Meg]

If you do not understand what Pokornist interpretations are, please study any dictionary where additional information is available.

Ochham, I've searched for the word 'Pokornist' on meriam webster and dictionary.com and that word isn't known there.
I googled the word and all it came up with was your use of it in another thread on this forum.
Can you explain that, or have I made a mistake somewhere?

I did a search similar to Peam and found an Sott thread with the words Pokornist and Nave. http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=8568.msg61262#msg61262

I searched for Nave, worm and vera and found this website_http://www.nakamachi.net/doctrine/organon.htm with documents and/or citation that links to the website in your profile. Is this secret linguistics information from your website? _http://www.ebookopen.com/

It looks similar to what you have posted here.

 

[Novelis]

When I saw how Ockham wrote his 1st post, it made me think about my own lack of external consideration for my writing style, so I dug out this book that I haven’t referred to for a while.

Understanding style: Practical ways to improve your writing.
Joe Glaser
ISBN: 0-19-511932-0

It’s a good book, the chapters are clear, concise and very informative, and there are exercises in each chapter that are rather fun too!

Here’s a sample:

ELIMINATING DEADWOOD

The term deadwood covers hundreds of needless words and constructions that weigh writing down, clogging its vitality. Deadwood bloats prose, making it puffy and shapeless…

Verbal filler

CHEAP CUTS:
Consider cutting out phrases like these wherever they appear:


I’m considering the area of biotechnology.
We regret the fact that you were inconvenienced. (Your inconvenience)
Oak is best in terms of strength. (is strongest)…

If you have read this Ockham, I’d recommend reading this book for any writing you might like to do in the future.

Thanks everyone, I’m glad that this thread reminded me to pay more attention to this area.

It’s funny, this thread was created for studies into linguistics, and writing in a good style is a LINGUISTIC skill, isn't it?

Why not learn what is right in front of your nose instead of reaching out into areas that are fuzzy? I have a lot of fun just (and problems) looking into the most basic English grammars, never mind all that “sentence derivatives stuff”.