Talk:Wp/ine/G̑erəneriskom dn̥g̑ʰᵘ̯am

From Incubator Plus 2.0
Jump to navigation Jump to search


To all those saying what I wrote was a fictional conlang, I was simply using this and this. Reiskom is a coined term for "Swedish". The language I referring to is Old Norse. -EggSalt (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

G̑erlom Su̯ebʰiskom is proper name for Kingdom of Sweden. Carlos Quiles sites are unreliable, contrary to Kobler/Pokorny. These sites are breaking spelling norms from:
AA (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and how do we interpret names like "helki" or "þorkautr". I didn't see what was wrong with not using Kailokos and Stenog̑ʰₒmonos -EggSalt (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Note that PIE according to Carlos Quiles is flawed, see real Alphabet. AA (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
helki and þorkautr do not exist in Kobler and Pokorny, no way there, so I repeated their reconstruction according to Kobler and Pokorny. AA (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Also why did you remove my changes Dǫnsk tunga is the name of G̑erlos Reiskos in Old Norse, which is the language I am talking about.
I see "Dǫnsk tunga" means Danish Tongue. It turns that Old Norse people called themselved Danish people. AA (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this page about Old Norse or about the Stenkvista runestone? --Guillermo2149 (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Old Norse, and the Stenkvista runestone is an example of written Old Norse. -EggSalt (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it is about first ever Norse King. AA (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It is definitely Old Norse, or at least what I had intended to say in the article was that but it was probably changed. -EggSalt (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
But "G̑erlos" is cognate to Charles. And Charles was Frankish king. AA (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the title supposed to be G̑erlom Reiskom as "-m" is for non-living things? --Guillermo2149 (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
G̑erlom Su̯ebʰiskom would be the best for Kingdom of Sweden, since EggSalt etymologically confused Sweden and Russia. AA (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The original word in the title "G̑erlos" was meant to mean "old". Furthermore, "Reiskos" was a coined term for "Swedish" based off Finnish "Ruotsi". The page was supposed to be about Old Norse. -EggSalt (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

In PIE we should match cognates, we must not use borrowed words. Otherwise we will cease to have pure PIE language. Users should see real PIE, without falsifications. AA (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Having a pure PIE is like having only using Old English words in English, no French or Old Norse or what not. Þen I ƿould speake a kin to þis, and I woulde speake no Romanish or Francish ƿords. Speakinȝe a kin to þis is muche to harde for me, and evene in oþer tounȝes it is.
PIE must be pure since it was only language in its time, see Wp/ine/Pr̥mo·Sendʰro·U̯erokᵘ̯esi̯om. 15:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
You are forgetting Proto Uralic, Proto Sino-Tibetan, and Pre-Indo-European languages like Basque or Etruscan. Even Latin borrows from other languages. -EggSalt (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Read this, please. 15:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
So your only source is a potentially unreliable story that has NO support for its claim other than it′s self? -EggSalt (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

These stories are reliable, since things are being excavated on their basis, see House of the Virgin Mary. 15:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this Mary you speak of had no magic powers and was just an ordinary person. Also a single house cannot justify your Tower of Babel story. -EggSalt (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Not maybe but really. Only devil has magic. Mary has miracles. Note that Bactrian, Zend, Indian and German can only descend from PIE. 15:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Can your Babel story explain why Basque and Etruscan are related to no other languages? -EggSalt (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
We should be graceful that God pointed us that PIE is original pre-Babel language. Some editors find cognates between PIE and such tongues, for example Sumerian gu descends from PIE *gᵘ̯ou- , it is even listed in Pokorny. 15:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Gu could be a loan, like in Etruscan Taliθa is borrowed from Aramaic -EggSalt (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I always manage to find cognate not loan when reconstructing nation names in Wp/ine/Leizdom Gᵘ̯ei̯topəutiom. Even China Japan and Korea. AA (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

In PIE those confounded loans are totally unneeded. Even Tieng Viet Nam can be cognatized to Dn̥g̑ʰu̯ām U̯elneroiskom. 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Show then how Tieng Viet Nam is cognatised to Dn̥g̑ʰu̯ām U̯elneroiskom. -EggSalt (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It is simply because Tieng = Dn̥g̑ʰu̯ā- = Tongue, Viet = U̯el- = Walk, Nam = Nero- = Inner, while both sounding and meaning coincide at once. 16:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay then, any more cognates to show me? -EggSalt (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Father: PIE appas = hebrew abba, Mother: PIE amma = hebrew imma. 16:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Now please explain this: аав нь (Áv ni) Mongolian for father. Tell me how it is related to "pətēr-". -EggSalt (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
This is related not to pətēr-os but to appa-no-s. Note that Mongolian in turn resembles modern Av- form of old Ab- form in Hebrew. All grammatical infixes are at: 16:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Now explain Haida "łʌ". -EggSalt (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I need at once both sound and meaning. If one of them is lacking, I am hopeless. 17:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Haida łʌ means I. AA (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Haida "łʌ", meaning I, can be treated like derivative of PIE -ō- suffix, which is used like this: *bʰer-ō "ich trage" vel "I wear". 17:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
By the way, Haida "łʌ" is NOT related to PIE. Haida is a language isolate. -EggSalt (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Nevertheless, cognatisation principle works with everything. And it is much better than lame borrowing, since it does not contaminate PIE. 19:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Remember, we are using PIE, not creole. And here we use PIE spelling, not IPA. AA (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, why is PIE called if is the ancestor of all languages, it was spoken in 4500 BC to 2500 BC. Settlement of the Americas began around 16000 BC. Are you saying that native american languages are based off PIE? (Note, this is Eggsalt) - 16:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Holy Bible says world exists since 4000 BC. PIE humanity began its spread from site of Jerusalem outwards since then. Read this, few lines above header, it confirms 4000 BC. 17:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
SHUTUP! Have ever heard of carbon dating? Sorry for loosing my temper but I just can't stand people who refuse to look at VERY RELIABLE evidence and instead look at terrible, biased evidence. -EggSalt (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
All your edits here are vandalisms. Find another wiki please, for example WIKIA. Your misspellings of everything you touch cause me to further disbelieve what you represent. 18:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but your conduct here is disruptive. You persistently misspell PIE words against local policy of sticking to Kobler/Pokorny. Please think how to reform yourself to be useful here. AA (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Look here: , radiocarbon dating is misinterpreted by disbelievers, to get falsified results contrary to Holy Bible. 19:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@AKIA AYAK I'm sorry if my edits are vandalisms, for most PIE dictionaries are PIE-English not English-PIE, so I can't find the correct word for what I want to say and I feel like I have to use other sources like this. @ I am sorry but I am not a creationist, and I won't believe in creationism, as a matter of fact, I am an Odinist who adjusts his beliefs to modern day society. Am I creating vandalism because I am disagreeing with you? -EggSalt (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandalisms and disagreement are unrelated. Vandalism is by NOT using proper PIE words which are here: 19:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This wiki uses only Kobler/Pokorny exclusively. AA (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any way I can find a Kobler/Pokorny English-PIE not PIE-English dictionary? -EggSalt (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes. English-PIE & German-PIE is here:
AA (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Now I can make accurate contributions. -EggSalt (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Grammar of PIE is here: AA (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)