Here we go. So, since what I’ve written evidently differs with everything you and many other people have believed for so long, I suppose you’re next attempt to refute it will contain words like “crank,” “fringe,” “fanciful,” ”“folk etymologies,”“unscientific” (Tee-hee!). Go ahead! Fire away! But it’s not going to change the evidence or arguments in the case one iota!
I debated whether I should break my silence or not, but in the end I decided to counteract some of the notions you were tossing around. Let's call your notions a new comparative-historical linguistics. The old school, the one that is so wrong for such a long time, based their comparison of the forms of words, bolstered by semantic relations. What Bopp and Grimm and their colleagues noticed is that sound change is regular. Your anything goes theory (as goofy has suggested) just about allows for anything. Yours is actually the older working hypothesis, stretching back through Isidore of Seville to Varro.
The 19th and 20th century version of comparative-historical linguistics also allows for words like pedal having something to do with foot to appear in English. It was borrowed rather than inherited. Once consonants count for very little and vowels for less, you can relate all kinds of words together with, between, and amongst languages. After posting the other day, I realised that through your system, pet is obviously related to foot, pes, pedis, et al.: the prototypical pet is a dog, dogs refer to feet, as in "Boy, howdy are my dogs tired."
I have had this same argument with more than one person on the Web.The most-interesting "theory" was that there was some sort of primitive phonemic inventory, and that one could determine etymologies, not by relating forms with meanings, historically and comparatively, but more like legos. If it's got an r in it, it has to do with flowing water: e.g., river, creek, pore, etc. Almost all his examples came from English.
I have noticed that once folks have come up with their theories, they tend to go someplace where they can present their findings. Words or language lists, archaeology or history, etc. And then they get all twisted out of shape when folks point out what's wrong with their theory. It devolves into a shouting match; nobody is convinced one way or another, etc. I am not saying that your theory is wrong, but I do reserve the right to say it does not interest me because I do not see its use in the same way that I do with physics or arithmetic or good old-fashioned comparative-historical linguistics.
Take care on your journey. You may be the first person I have to put on my ignore list.
Lignify
