Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] *pa(x)u- "small" and "fire"?

Expand Messages
  • Piotr Gasiorowski
    Heteroclitic nouns in *-wr./*-wo:r ~ *-wo:n/*-w(e)n- are normally deverbal. In this case, *pah2- is perhaps the guard, protect root: *pah2-wr. that which is
    Message 1 of 18 , Jan 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Heteroclitic nouns in *-wr./*-wo:r ~ *-wo:n/*-w(e)n- are normally deverbal. In this case, *pah2- is perhaps the 'guard, protect' root: *pah2-wr. 'that which is
      guarded' (?).

      Piotr



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
      To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:16 PM
      Subject: [tied] *pa(x)u- "small" and "fire"?



      > Interesting, so does that mean that *paxwr "fire" literally means "little
      > one"? A taboo-inspired euphemism perhaps? Afterall, one wouldn't want
      > the fire to get TOO big and we all know how Loki can be dangerous if he's
      > upset <;)
    • Glen Gordon
      ... But what shows that *paxwr should be analysed as *pax-wr over *paxw-r? - gLeN _________________________________________________________________ Add photos
      Message 2 of 18 , Jan 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Piotr:
        >Heteroclitic nouns in *-wr./*-wo:r ~ *-wo:n/*-w(e)n- are normally deverbal.
        >In this case, *pah2- is perhaps the 'guard, protect' root: *pah2-wr. 'that
        >which is guarded' (?).

        But what shows that *paxwr should be analysed as *pax-wr over *paxw-r?


        - gLeN


        _________________________________________________________________
        Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
        http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
      • Piotr Gasiorowski
        I could imagine a word meaning the little one with the Hoffmann suffix (*-Ho:n), but heteroclisis would be abnormal in such a formation. Piotr ... From:
        Message 3 of 18 , Jan 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I could imagine a word meaning "the little one" with the Hoffmann suffix (*-Ho:n), but heteroclisis would be abnormal in such a formation.

          Piotr


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
          To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 5:39 PM
          Subject: Re: [tied] *pa(x)u- "small" and "fire"?


          >
          > Piotr:
          > >Heteroclitic nouns in *-wr./*-wo:r ~ *-wo:n/*-w(e)n- are normally deverbal.
          > >In this case, *pah2- is perhaps the 'guard, protect' root: *pah2-wr. 'that
          > >which is guarded' (?).
          >
          > But what shows that *paxwr should be analysed as *pax-wr over *paxw-r?
          >
          >
          > - gLeN
        • Glen Gordon
          ... Whoa. Where did *-ho:n come from? I thought we were talking about *-r (as in *wod-r, for example) or does such a construct require the verb stem to be in
          Message 4 of 18 , Jan 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Piotr:
            >>But what shows that *paxwr should be analysed as *pax-wr over *paxw-r?
            >
            >I could imagine a word meaning "the little one" with the Hoffmann suffix
            >(*-Ho:n), but heteroclisis would be abnormal in such a formation.

            Whoa. Where did *-ho:n come from? I thought we were talking about *-r
            (as in *wod-r, for example) or does such a construct require the verb
            stem to be in the o-grade?


            - gLeN




            _________________________________________________________________
            STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
            http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
          • Piotr Gasiorowski
            ... From: Glen Gordon To: Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [tied] *pa(x)u- small
            Message 5 of 18 , Jan 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
              To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 6:14 PM
              Subject: Re: [tied] *pa(x)u- "small" and "fire"?



              > Whoa. Where did *-ho:n come from? I thought we were talking about *-r (as in *wod-r, for example) or does such a construct require the verb stem to be in the o-grade?

              I though you wanted to derive *pah2wr. from the _adjective_ *pah2u- 'small', and I don't know of a morphological process that allows you to form a heteroclitic deadjectival noun by adding the *-r/*-n- suffix. The only example I can think of (a rather doubtful one and indeclinable to boot) is *newn. 'nine'.

              Piotr
            • Glen Gordon
              ... But why can t *paxu- be a verbal root meaning to be small ? - gLeN _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail
              Message 6 of 18 , Jan 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Piotr:
                >I thought you wanted to derive *pah2wr. from the _adjective_ *pah2u-
                >'small',

                But why can't *paxu- be a verbal root meaning "to be small"?


                - gLeN



                _________________________________________________________________
                MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
                http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
              • Piotr Gasiorowski
                ... From: Glen Gordon To: Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 6:59 PM Subject: Re: [tied] *pa(x)u- small
                Message 7 of 18 , Jan 2, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
                  To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 6:59 PM
                  Subject: Re: [tied] *pa(x)u- "small" and "fire"?



                  > But why can't *paxu- be a verbal root meaning "to be small"?

                  Any examples of its use as such in _any_ branch? Judging from the reflexes (such as Eng. few, Lat. paucus, etc.), we've got a primary adjective here, without a corresponding verb.

                  Piotr
                • Glen Gordon
                  ... After rethinking, perhaps it s more like *paxu- little originating from *pax-u- protected . Regardless, couldn t an adjectival stem be given the ending
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jan 4, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Piotr:
                    >Any examples of its use as such in _any_ branch? Judging from the reflexes
                    >(such as Eng. few, Lat. paucus, etc.), we've got a primary adjective here,
                    >without a corresponding verb.

                    After rethinking, perhaps it's more like *paxu- "little" originating from
                    *pax-u- "protected". Regardless, couldn't an adjectival stem be given
                    the ending *-r at least? Basically *-r says "that/those which ..." and
                    *paxw-r would signify "that which (is) small" or "little one". The suffix
                    *-r is used for another natural element, *wod-r. Yet on the other hand, if
                    I'm right about deriving *paxu- from *pax-, then both etymologies would
                    ultimately signify the same thing:

                    *pax- + -wr "that which is guarded"
                    *pax-u- + -r "that which is guarded" (> "that which is little")

                    *pax-u- "protected" > "helpless" > "little"


                    On a related topic, I'm starting to think that "adjectives" (erh, or rather
                    nouns that happen to describe a quality) like *paxu- could be made into
                    verbs without any endings at an earlier stage of IE (specifically from Mid
                    IE
                    to early Late IE).

                    Basically, a stem like *paxu- "little" could become **pxeu- as a verb.
                    The reason for the shapeshifting lies in Mid IE where the 3ps, ending in
                    *-e would shift the penultimate accent to the last syllable of the verb
                    (eg: *pex-eu-e). After loss of unstressed schwa, you end up with a
                    nominal stem in CVCC- and a verbal counterpart of the shape CCVC-.

                    So I'm thinking that maybe verbs like *kleu- "to hear", for example, are
                    formed from adjectives (*kel-u- "called" < *kel(-x)- "to call"). That goes
                    too for the *-ei- verbal extension that I also suspect is adjectival in
                    origin. An example of *-ei- is *mn-ei- from *men- "to think" which would
                    theoretically be from an adjective *men-i- "thoughtful"(?).

                    I'd just like to add that since the s-aorists don't conform to this CCVC-
                    verbal pattern, I have come to the conclusion in the past few months that
                    they were originally deverbal stative nouns that were taken bare as verbs
                    to eventually convey this new aspect. Obviously, IE got a little more
                    synthetic since then and came to employ special denominal verb markers
                    like *-y[e/o]- and *-dh[e/o]-.

                    See? It all this morphology ties together! :) Does what I say sound
                    crappy? I'd like some thoughts on that.


                    - gLeN


                    _________________________________________________________________
                    The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
                    http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
                  • Piotr Gasiorowski
                    I don t think the general theory of PIE extensions (if ever formulated) will be that simple, but I find your idea that *pah2-u- might be a derivative of *pah2-
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jan 4, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I don't think the general theory of PIE extensions (if ever formulated) will be that simple, but I find your idea that *pah2-u- might be a derivative of *pah2- really brilliant and I think I'll buy it if you don't charge too much :-). Congratulations, Glen.

                      I still don't think a derivation like *pah2u- + -r is viable; even in the Caland system you can have adjectival derivatives with *-u- or with *-ro- (*-no-), but less usually with both at the same time. There _are_ occasional mixed formations Gk. arguros 'silver' and Skt. arjuna- 'white' < *h2ár.g^-u- + -ro-/-no-, but these are thematic, unlike the 'fire' word. *pah2u-ro- is actually attested (Gk. pauros, Lat. parvus 'little, small, weak' [with metathesis]), but again it's thematic, as expected, and has no semantic connection with fire.

                      Piotr


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
                      To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 2:58 PM
                      Subject: Re: [tied] *pa(x)u- "small" and "fire"?


                      >
                      > Piotr:
                      > >Any examples of its use as such in _any_ branch? Judging from the reflexes
                      > >(such as Eng. few, Lat. paucus, etc.), we've got a primary adjective here,
                      > >without a corresponding verb.
                      >
                      > After rethinking, perhaps it's more like *paxu- "little" originating from
                      > *pax-u- "protected". Regardless, couldn't an adjectival stem be given
                      > the ending *-r at least? Basically *-r says "that/those which ..." and
                      > *paxw-r would signify "that which (is) small" or "little one". The suffix
                      > *-r is used for another natural element, *wod-r. Yet on the other hand, if
                      > I'm right about deriving *paxu- from *pax-, then both etymologies would
                      > ultimately signify the same thing:
                      >
                      > *pax- + -wr "that which is guarded"
                      > *pax-u- + -r "that which is guarded" (> "that which is little")
                      >
                      > *pax-u- "protected" > "helpless" > "little"
                      >
                      >
                      > On a related topic, I'm starting to think that "adjectives" (erh, or rather
                      > nouns that happen to describe a quality) like *paxu- could be made into
                      > verbs without any endings at an earlier stage of IE (specifically from Mid
                      > IE
                      > to early Late IE).
                      >
                      > Basically, a stem like *paxu- "little" could become **pxeu- as a verb.
                      > The reason for the shapeshifting lies in Mid IE where the 3ps, ending in
                      > *-e would shift the penultimate accent to the last syllable of the verb
                      > (eg: *pex-eu-e). After loss of unstressed schwa, you end up with a
                      > nominal stem in CVCC- and a verbal counterpart of the shape CCVC-.
                      >
                      > So I'm thinking that maybe verbs like *kleu- "to hear", for example, are
                      > formed from adjectives (*kel-u- "called" < *kel(-x)- "to call"). That goes
                      > too for the *-ei- verbal extension that I also suspect is adjectival in
                      > origin. An example of *-ei- is *mn-ei- from *men- "to think" which would
                      > theoretically be from an adjective *men-i- "thoughtful"(?).
                      >
                      > I'd just like to add that since the s-aorists don't conform to this CCVC-
                      > verbal pattern, I have come to the conclusion in the past few months that
                      > they were originally deverbal stative nouns that were taken bare as verbs
                      > to eventually convey this new aspect. Obviously, IE got a little more
                      > synthetic since then and came to employ special denominal verb markers
                      > like *-y[e/o]- and *-dh[e/o]-.
                      >
                      > See? It all this morphology ties together! :) Does what I say sound
                      > crappy? I'd like some thoughts on that.
                      >
                      >
                      > - gLeN
                      >
                      >
                      > _________________________________________________________________
                      > The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
                      > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      > ADVERTISEMENT
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      >
                      >
                    • Glen Gordon
                      ... However, it s not meant to be a general theory (if that is a way of saying panacea ) and it isn t that simple. The CVCC/CCVC thing only accounts for the
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jan 4, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >I don't think the general theory of PIE extensions (if ever formulated)
                        >will be that simple, [...]

                        However, it's not meant to be a "general theory" (if that is a way of
                        saying "panacea") and it isn't that simple. The CVCC/CCVC thing only
                        accounts for the extension *-eu- and *-ei-, the s-aorist and the usual
                        accent alternating verb pairs (eg: *ters-/*tres-). (Perhaps it could also
                        explain *-em- if it can be satisfactorily related to nouns ending in
                        *-mo- or *-m-n.)

                        Other extensions like *-(a)x- [transitive] appear to be bonifiedly
                        non-denominal and ancient, even if their accent alternations are to be
                        explained by my above "general theory" (if that is to mean "an _overall_
                        theory" like that of Grimm's Law).


                        >but I find your idea that *pah2-u- might be a derivative of *pah2- really
                        >brilliant and I think I'll buy it if you don't charge too much
                        >:-).

                        $200 and I take cash. Hey, I need new shoes :)


                        >I still don't think a derivation like *pah2u- + -r is viable; even in
                        >the Caland system you can have adjectival derivatives with *-u- or with
                        >*-ro- (*-no-), but less usually with both at the same time.

                        But I'm not trying to form an adjective with *paxwr -- it's a noun.

                        I'm not sure where you're going here. The ending *-ro- is different from
                        inanimate *-r. Now, *paxwr "fire" either can be divided as *pax-wr (as
                        you say) or *paxw-r (as I say), but in the end it appears to me that
                        either analysis would create the same basic meaning ("that which is
                        protected"). One is the combination of verb and passive *-wr, and the
                        other is an adjective plus active inanimate agent *-r.

                        The question between us now is, if *paxu- underwent a semantic shift from
                        "protected" to "small" during Late IE, did *paxwr form before or
                        after such a shift? If after, *paxwr could have meant "that which is
                        small" -- a respectful term for fire. If before, as you might suggest,
                        *paxwr was to mean "that which is protected". Granted, the "before"
                        scenario is more direct and Occam tells me that I should opt for that
                        idea before my own pet theory. However, the topic is still interesting
                        in terms of IE belief-systems and, I think, worth a thought if it can't
                        be ruled out morphologically.



                        On the topic of *-u-ro-, however, I'm not surprised that its attestation
                        is scanty, being that *-ro- was created very late. It is one of many
                        "thematicized" animate suffixes made by the addition of the thematic
                        vowel to a consonant-final suffix.

                        However, before this was a la mode, middle Late IE employed the thematic
                        vowel in a different way. This method dates before the time when the
                        thematic vowel (which was then pronounced *&) had changed to *e or *o,
                        depending on automatic lengthening before voiced segments. Thus, the
                        animate variant *-or- (< *-&:r < inanimate *-r), and others of its ilk
                        such as the later "feminine" animate *-ax (< *-&x), were produced at
                        this time.

                        What you state only shows that adjectives can indeed be given the same
                        endings as verbs. Plus even though *paxuros relates to *paxu- rather
                        than *paxwr, doesn't *paxwr nonetheless have the potential to form
                        a derivative like *pxuros in the same manner as *udros from *wodr?


                        - gLeN


                        _________________________________________________________________
                        Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
                        http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                      • P&G
                        ... Forgive me climbing on board a thread I have only half been following - I may have misunderstood what you mean. If you are talking about the
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jan 5, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >t's not meant to be a "general theory" ...The CVCC/CCVC thing only
                          > accounts for the extension *-eu- and *-ei-, the s-aorist and the usual
                          > accent alternating verb pairs (eg: *ters-/*tres-).

                          Forgive me climbing on board a thread I have only half been following - I
                          may have misunderstood what you mean. If you are talking about the
                          schwebeablaut alternation CVCC / CCVC in PIE in general, then isn't it
                          rather more widespread than just those extensions? There are a number of
                          roots which show it, and it's a rather important factor in the laryngeal
                          theory. You probably didn't mean PIE roots in general, but I need to
                          check,

                          Peter
                        • Glen Gordon
                          ... All qualitative ablaut originates from the loss of unstressed vowels in Mid IE, causing zero-grading as well as oscillations in accent which were
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jan 6, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Peter:
                            >If you are talking about the schwebeablaut alternation CVCC / CCVC in PIE
                            >in general, then isn't it rather more widespread than just those
                            >extensions?

                            All qualitative ablaut originates from the loss of unstressed vowels in
                            Mid IE, causing zero-grading as well as oscillations in accent which were
                            originally regular. An example of this loss would be *kwo:ns/*kunos from
                            earlier *kewane/*kewenase (with regular penultimate stress).

                            The oscillation I'm refering to however is more specific. It is the
                            apparent movement of the vowel within the verb root itself causing
                            two different guna-grades for a single stem. We have *gHrebH- _and_
                            *gHerbH-, for example. We have *pleh- but we also have *pelh-. What caused
                            this?

                            I'm stating for the record that this oscillation is caused by differing
                            accentuation for conjugated verbs as compared to bare deverbal nouns.
                            So, in Mid IE before the loss of unstressed vowels, one would originally
                            have *gereb-e "he scratches/grabs for" (> *gHrebH-e-ti). The basic action
                            noun correlating to this conjugation would be *gareb "a grab" (becoming
                            *gHorbH-o-s).

                            Following this idea, only verbs that were originally *CVCVC- in shape
                            should have produced these oscillations. Verbs of the original form
                            *CVCCV- would not be able to yield this result. So one may reconstruct
                            Mid IE *peleh- "to flow" (> *pelh-/*pleh-), *terex- "to cross"
                            (*terx-/*trax-) and *gereb- "to grab" (> *gHerbH-/*gHrebH-).

                            I also propose that verbs with the extensions *-eu- and *-ei- originate
                            from adjectives in *-u- and *-i- being made into verbs, suggesting that
                            switching word categories was once less cumbersome than we later find
                            in reconstructed IE.


                            - gLeN


                            _________________________________________________________________
                            Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
                            http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
                          • Piotr Gasiorowski
                            To be sure, Raimo Anttila argued against Schwebeablaut being a regular process in PIE grammar in a book published in 1969. Much of what has been treated as
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jan 6, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              To be sure, Raimo Anttila argued against Schwebeablaut being a regular process in PIE grammar in a book published in 1969. Much of what has been treated as Schwebeablaut can be analysed as sporadically occurring secondary ("ahistorical") full grades, metathesis (when the medial consonant is *r, as in *perk^- ~ *prek^-) or suffix ablaut of the type *CeR-u-/*CR-eu-. What Glen had in mind was "Schwebeablaut of the third kind", when the final consonant is suffixal.

                              Piotr


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "P&G" <petegray@...>
                              To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 4:46 PM
                              Subject: Re: [tied] *pa(x)u- "small" and "fire"?


                              > >t's not meant to be a "general theory" ...The CVCC/CCVC thing only
                              > > accounts for the extension *-eu- and *-ei-, the s-aorist and the usual
                              > > accent alternating verb pairs (eg: *ters-/*tres-).
                              >
                              > Forgive me climbing on board a thread I have only half been following - I
                              > may have misunderstood what you mean. If you are talking about the
                              > schwebeablaut alternation CVCC / CCVC in PIE in general, then isn't it
                              > rather more widespread than just those extensions? There are a number of
                              > roots which show it, and it's a rather important factor in the laryngeal
                              > theory. You probably didn't mean PIE roots in general, but I need to
                              > check,
                              >
                              > Peter
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                              > ADVERTISEMENT
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                              >
                              >
                            • P&G
                              ... grammar in a book published in 1969. Much of what has been treated as Schwebeablaut can be analysed as sporadically occurring secondary ( ahistorical )
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jan 7, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >Raimo Anttila argued against Schwebeablaut being a regular process in PIE
                                grammar in a >book published in 1969. Much of what has been treated as
                                Schwebeablaut can be analysed >as sporadically occurring secondary
                                ("ahistorical") full grades, metathesis (when the medial >consonant is *r,
                                as in *perk^- ~ *prek^-) or suffix ablaut of the type *CeR-u-/*CR-eu-.

                                Yes, that's what I thought.

                                >What Glen had in mind was "Schwebeablaut of the third kind", when the final
                                consonant is >suffixal.

                                Thanks.

                                Peter
                              • P&G
                                ... Thanks. This helps me see where you re coming from. Peter
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jan 7, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > >If you are talking about the schwebeablaut alternation CVCC / CCVC in PIE
                                  > >in general, then isn't it rather more widespread than just those
                                  > >extensions?
                                  > ...only verbs that were originally *CVCVC- in shape
                                  > should have produced these oscillations. Verbs of the original form
                                  > *CVCCV- would not be able to yield this result.

                                  Thanks. This helps me see where you're coming from.

                                  Peter
                                • Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham@n
                                  ... formulated) will be that simple, but I find your idea that *pah2-u- might be a derivative of *pah2- really brilliant and I think I ll buy it if you don t
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Jan 24, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
                                    <piotr.gasiorowski@i...> wrote:
                                    > I don't think the general theory of PIE extensions (if ever
                                    formulated) will be that simple, but I find your idea that *pah2-u-
                                    might be a derivative of *pah2- really brilliant and I think I'll buy
                                    it if you don't charge too much :-). Congratulations, Glen.

                                    If you don't _buy_ it, how would you cite it? Public communication?

                                    Richard.
                                  • Piotr Gasiorowski
                                    ... From: To: Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [tied] *pa(x)u- small and
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Jan 24, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: <richard.wordingham@...>
                                      To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                                      Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:22 PM
                                      Subject: Re: [tied] *pa(x)u- "small" and "fire"?


                                      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
                                      > <piotr.gasiorowski@i...> wrote:
                                      > > I don't think the general theory of PIE extensions (if ever
                                      > formulated) will be that simple, but I find your idea that *pah2-u-
                                      > might be a derivative of *pah2- really brilliant and I think I'll buy
                                      > it if you don't charge too much :-). Congratulations, Glen.
                                      >
                                      > If you don't _buy_ it, how would you cite it? Public communication?

                                      Hey, Glen has learnt a thing or two on this list, haven't you, Glen? How about deducting the market price of the etymology from my fee? :-))

                                      Piotr
                                    • Glen Gordon
                                      ... Let s go into the etymology business! We ll make a killing. Hell, we could even pawn off some fake etymologies. Nobody ll know the difference but our
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Jan 25, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Piotr:
                                        >Hey, Glen has learnt a thing or two on this list, haven't you, Glen? How
                                        >about deducting the market price of the etymology from my fee? :-))

                                        Let's go into the etymology business! We'll make a killing. Hell, we
                                        could even pawn off some fake etymologies. Nobody'll know the difference
                                        but our profits will be through the roof... heheh >:)


                                        - gLeN



                                        _________________________________________________________________
                                        The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
                                        http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.