Hebrew roots.

‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig Thank you so much for this information that I am perusing. I made sure that I perused the sites on Sound Changes, to refresh my mind on Grimm's law and other laws, before editing Talk pages on certain words. My aim is to be available towards perfecting Wiktionary etymologies of illusive words, to make sure that it is indisputably the most reliable reference. Certain Proto Indo-European roots have caused me concern, particularly that of DOWN, where the meaning changes abruptly and could well be criticised by professional etymologists. It is always safer to be able to cite a known language for the period of the unattested = * root, such as Hittite for an axe, under etymology for ADZE, that I always regarded as an Iberian word that remained through the conquests. Since the spelling changes considerably over the years, and there are a number of such words in Spanish, some of which were borrowed into Basque, two or three illusive words may have these remote connections. You may be interested that English BAD is cited in the Guiness Book of Records as the oldest English word; but I reject folk etymologies. All of what you have recommended for me will be essential if I am to edit words seriously. Kind Regards, Andrew

Don't worry Andrew, this whole conflict was worthwhile because at least SOMEBODY (me, namely) is making good use of the intelligence you have posited on here about preBabel and the Basque and Caucasian langs. Still didnt read it.. but wish me luck in finding it if you didnt post it. Hope this doesnt get my server number banned if that's possible from wikipedia, this little notage of support of sorts.

Sorry; I have had an artery operation in hospital, so have not got round to replying as I OUGHT to have done earlier. So, thank you for your encouraging message, I received that information content from a Christian friend who had completed a degree course in ancient languages and bases his findings upon recorded facts rather than the obscurities of science. You would not be blocked unless by posting vandalistic or false information on the entry pages or by abusive remarks on talk pages. If you do consider any additions to the etymology section, please adhere to the stringent guide lines posted on (my) user page and avoid deleting any part of what is already there (vandalism). I put (my) for my contributions on a user or talk page, because as soon as any such material is saved and published in any Wikimedia site it becomes the property of Wikimedia as well as that in the main entry section - in this case - Wiktionary, which is a branch of Wikimedia, as you would already know. Andrew

I feel moved to respond, and note that facts are data points, and the scientific method is one framework for attempting to interpret those facts. Scientific work must be published to have any weight in the broader community, and in publishing, it is made available for others to inspect, question, verify, and attempt to reproduce. Any scientific work that cannot be reproduced is thereby discredited. Nothing obscure about it. It might be complex, and it might need a lot of studying and reading to understand, but it's not obscure (i.e. hidden).

What you present is absolutely true. My main concern is over false links and atrocities such as the accidental source error huff on the dandruff entry, thereby misleading viewers; and, of course, the older the etymology the more the conjecture normally; that is why I prefer to employ a points system. If the simple guidelines are adhered to with all main etymology edits any confusion on the part of the reader should be obviated. I am not free to pioneer P.I.E. roots on such pages, but leave it to those graduates whom you specified. Andrew talk