This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

Re: Homophonic Neonyms...
No, and I'm done discussing your pseudo-etymological theories.

This message was edited 10/25/2014, 11:55 PM

vote up1vote down

Replies

LMS,
You are painting a very inconsistent picture of yourself. You went from claiming to agree with most of my model in one post to rejecting it altogether in a single exchange.You said,
QuoteThe only "rules" of euphonic naming practices that I, and likely most of the board, disagree with are the 1st and 3rd point under number 3.

That implied that you accepted items #1, #2, #2.1 and #3.2.I followed with,
Quote#2.1 is the topic of this thread. By accepting it, too, have you reconsidered your previous position?
You responded,
QuoteNo, and I'm done discussing your pseudo-etymological theories.

Are you still referring to only items #3.1 & 3.3, or did you change your mind about the rest of it, too? (That isn't clear to me.)

This message was edited 10/26/2014, 5:47 AM

vote up1vote down