Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"Renia" <renia@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:fpnm8l$u2m$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> John Briggs wrote:
>
>> Chess One wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>But if not try a google, and the library will /not/ likely have his
>>>>>dictionary on Archaic Words - but persevere, since it is much more
>>>>>illustrative of Middle-English and earlier, than than the fatuous
>>>>>OED, which your library will have, but which will omit many
>>>>>references and citations wherever available, often chosing a recent
>>>>>one, rather than the earliest one.
>>>>
>>>>Well, Halliwell's dictionary was first published in 1850.  You would
>>>>be better off consulting Wright's "English Dialect Dictionary".
>>>
>>>Is that the one abandoned at 'c' or 'd'?
>>
>>
>> No - but you'll have to explain what you are talking about.
>
> I've been trying to follow this thread, because I find onomastics 
> interesting, though I know little about it. But I find Chess One's 
> language so convoluted, I don't know what he's talking about!

And Renia, because your own English is so stunted, possibly that's the 
cause? After all, is there is some specific thing you don't understand,
like 
the dictionary recommend to my attention in the above, which halted at the

letter 'c', you have not yet demonstrated your ability to express yourself

by other then general [and negative] aspersions.

And when people are unable to adequately express themselves, how then to 
engage their vagueness - which they are happy to project outward as the 
convulutions of others?

In other words, you confound your Mote with your Mottel [Old French].

Of course, if you are personally interested in 'onomastics' and I am
talking 
ontologies, then you will become confused and wonder if English is my
first 
language, et cetera, which is entirely understandable, given the 
cir***stance and general nature of newsgroup contributions.

Phil Innes