Re: Breton, Cornish & French

John, 3 minutes after my note to Renia, you write in to rubbish the content

of the message.

There are a couple of reasons why people do that on usenet - you feel 
threatened, is the first and very /obvious/ reason, and the second is that

you like to create tensions among others since you get off on it <-- also 
equally evident!

OK?

Indeed, in your own words below you do not have the faintest clue what I
am 
talking, so perhaps reserve your comment? Otherwise your abused 'virgin 
persona' will forever exclaim on all you do /not/ understand or have any 
experience of, rather than join with others to discuss what they /do/ 
understand.

I simply wish Renia to understand something about the nature of inquiry.
Its 
a process thing. That is what I am writing about. I do not insist Renia 
agrees with me on any issue, since I am hardly stating any 'issue' or
result 
of inquiry, but how we go about acquiring inofrmation.

I cannot proceed further if these messages are intercepted by people who
do 
not wish any mutual understanding to occur. Which, sadly, is all too
typical 
newsgroup fare, and must discourage those who would actually like to share

their processes and explorations.

Phil Innes



"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:Lvhyj.26491$oW4.14120@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Renia" <renia@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:fpnm8l$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
>
> recommended?
>
>> to my attention in the
>> above, which halted at the letter 'c',
>
> No, that's complete nonsense.
>
>> 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?
>
> convolutions?
>
>> In other words, you confound your Mote with your Mottel [Old French].
>
> Just the faintest clue as to what you are talking about?
>
>> Of course, if you are personally interested in 'onomastics' and I am
>> talking ontologies,
>
> You really don't mean "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.
>
> Of course, it is entirely possible that you don't understand what is
meant 
> by "onomastics".  Let's start with "linguistics" - do you understand
that?
> -- 
> John Briggs
>
>