| I am very sorry that you feel so emotionally disturbed as to resort to insults. > No, it is not obvious. In fact, that is not a mainstream etymology at all. It rhymes. That is not obvious? The proposed root *werg has hardly changed at all in over 2000 years! > Nor is positing the initial dental as a “pejorative” prefix, something any recognized scholar of comparative Indo-European linguistics would do. Was that a compliment? I'm aware that humanities research is full of opinion. That doesn't mean I was pretending to be a recognized scholar, just because I admitted an opinion. > Furthermore, your connection of ‘dwarf’ and the PIE ‘work’ root to ‘warrior’ is, frankly, crackpot. I did not read this off from a cracked pot to fill in the missing bits. I attempted internal reconstruction which is admittedly highly speculative. -- Frankly, I suppose you are, like pretty much every linguist, biased towards your mother tongue, and can't readily accept the rhyme work~dwarf ... because that doesn't rhyme, indeed. Conversely, I have to admit a bias, too. I couldn't even explain in detail how dwarf and Zwerg could be cognate or how to derive a Germanic root from those and other cognates. So, of course I expected the need to take this with a pinch of salt. But your spoon full was a bit much. |