Re: Uncomprehensible! was Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"Custos Custodum" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:gvjrs35b61998ber8g1pfv2br3a42ovvl3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:54:11 -0500, "Chess One" <OneChess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:LaKdnWs0Z9Gga1TanZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>>>> In other words, you confound your Mote with your Mottel [Old
French].
>>>>>
>>>>> Just the faintest clue as to what you are talking about?
>>>>
>>>> I mentioend to Renia a while back that this poster does this. His
posts
>>>> go all uncomprehensible. I don't know whether he's taking the piss
and
>>>> trying to make people feel dim because they can't follow him, or is
he
>>>> genuinely trying to communicate. I suspect it's the former but who 
>>>> knows
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Allan
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Allan, I think, perhaps, that you know.
>>
>>Well, you 2 wags, I wonder if you can get over jerking each other off,
and
>>try a topic? That would be a test wouldn't it? Or is that too
>>"uncomprehensible"?
>>
>>You must consider a couple or three things in your response, that (a)
>>"uncomprehensible" may well mean that the nominal topic is
>>*in*comprehensible to /you/, and (b) that that is not my fault, since
>>indeed, anyone who can write "uncomprehensible" has a bunch of
explaining 
>>to
>>do themselves about their own "uncomprehension", and (c) that calling
>>someone "uncomprehensible" is illiterate.
>>
>
> uncomprehensible  a.
>
> Obs.
>   = incomprehensible a.
> 1388 Wyclif Jer. xxxii. 19 Greet in councel, and vncomprehensible in
> thou3t.  c1532 G. Du Wes Introd. Fr. in Palsgr. 1057 [The soul] is
> uncomprehensyble.  1567-9 Jewel Def. Apol. 239 It is vntoucheable, and
> vncomprehensible vnto our senses.  1587 Golding De Mornay xxiv. (1592)
> 370 The matters of God which are vncomprehensible to man.  1740 Cheyne
> Regimen 185 An uncomprehensible and inexplicable Mystery.
>
> Looks like it is no more illiterate than your own use of, say,
> 'campel' in a previous post.
>
> HTH, etc., etc.

Thank you for this contribution, and indeed, for your campel. Had you
though 
something to say on an issue here, or are you an Hukkeyre?

As you may discover, use of Anglo-Saxon words is a tolerably abstruse art,

whereas /contem****ary/ critique in our own time which poses as a certain 
correctness, but which displays an unintendedly though oblate illiteracy,
is 
something else entire. That is to say, it is fatuous nonsense, easily
thrown 
out, and meaningless.

Thank you though, for your oar - though you might take care not to
confound 
your research with the sense of contem****ary matters, lest you seem to the

semi-lettered to be a rentier-pedant.

They are easily amused, so don't let it go to your head - experte crede.

Phil Innes