Grand Unified Theory

António Marques · 29 Aug 2010, 01:30 · from 2010-August.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ant=F3nio_Marques?=)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:30:27 +0100
Subject: (urth) Grand Unified Theory
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikdFTgnNXsj2U_kaYMJudjwYpaNS7k2Cf36HcWM at mail.gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W29BF5E0F70EC8B0634ACBECF820 at phx.gbl>
	<AANLkTikdFTgnNXsj2U_kaYMJudjwYpaNS7k2Cf36HcWM at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimYq+E9exMRebyy_71N+UmJvcPiFJX95J3+iYL_ at mail.gmail.com>

2010/8/29 Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com>

> On 23 August 2010 18:03, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As tinkerbell Tzadkiel
>> hopes to reuinte with big Tzadkiel, as (I think) Seawrack hopes to reunite
>> with The Mother, so
>> little, human Scylla hoped to reunite with big mama monster Scylla.
>>
>
> I don't know whether this has been pointed out before, but it is a fact
> that 'Seawrack' and 'Scylla' are almost equal as names go. Or, at least, the
> name misheard as 'Seawrack' could easily be a derivate of the name
> misconstrued(?) as 'Scylla'.
>

(I mean, the names are alike to the point of -ll-, a double consonant, being
represented by -wr-, and not some simpler alternative.)

Yes, I know I've been implying that the greek pronunciation of a name such
> as Scylla would be something like ['skulla] 'SKOOL luh', but that was only
> in the context of knowing the earthly etymology of 'typhoon' - the briahtic
> etymology of the name translated as Scylla is quite another matter. And it's
> not that I possess some special expertise on the issue, either, I was just
> pointing out what I think linguists would say, because Wolfe is nothing if
> not rigorous in his choices. And here I must go further even than James - I
> think the convoluted history of the word is a *good* reason why Wolfe would
> use it (rather than a small nuisance he might forgive).
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100829/0f514e34/attachment.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net