Ní thiggim.

_________________
Is mise, le meas, Deġeḃ.
Is Sasanaċ mé.
Tá beagán Gaoluinn agam.
As Béarla:
I see things differently.
I see things other people can't see.
Sometimes what I see is not there.
Some people call me crazy, and some of them are right.

The source for Galillee was from direct communication with a Jewish colocutor.
The other sources I quote do support my assertions, but you have to read them completely, for the information is not on the top line.
See also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10466670/

_________________
Is mise, le meas, Deġeḃ.
Is Sasanaċ mé.
Tá beagán Gaoluinn agam.
As Béarla:
I see things differently.
I see things other people can't see.
Sometimes what I see is not there.
Some people call me crazy, and some of them are right.

If you'd spent time learning the language instead of trying to re-write it, you'd have understood that no problem. You'd probably also know how to spell "ní thuigim."

Redwolf

There's nothing "pompous" about asking someone to support their claims. Hypotheses are only as good as the evidence they're based on. If the facts aren't there, then it's not "science", it's merely speculation. If the facts don't support the claims, then it's not science but pseudoscience--and, as Lughaidh pointed out, the facts you present do not support your claims.


Where has this "valid evidence" been presented? I haven't seen, which is why I keep requesting it.

But now that you've at last provided links, let's go through them:


These first two provide archaeological evidence of contacts between Imperial Rome and Bronze-Age Ireland. But these contacts were never in dispute. The claim you made was "the Romans reported that their Gaulish interpreters had no difficulty in communicating with the Irish Celts". But there's no mention in either of those articles of language at all, let alone any evidence to substantiate the claim of intercomprehensibility.


This isn't a proper scholarly citation. The "Etymology" section of the Wikipedia article simply repeats the same unsourced speculations you made (or, rather, the claims you presented as your own were copypasted from here) without even citing so much as an dictionary--which would demonstrate that they are factually wrong. The statementresults from the confusion of two completely distinct roots, عرب (`-r-b) and غرب (ġ-r-b). Granted, there are contemporary spoken dialects where /`/ and /ġ/ are merged, but that's like saying that "saw" and "thaw" are the same word because there are people who lisp.

The "comprehensible" meaning belongs to the first root, but whether that meaning underlies the ethnonym or vice-versa is an open question (cf. Spanish hablar cristiano "speak Christian" for "speak intelligibly"). "West" and "raven" (as well as "stranger") belong to the ġ-r-b root. And I don't know where they get "desert", "mingle", and "merchant", all of which belong to neither. Moreover, assuming that all meanings associated with a particular triliteral Semitic root are ultimately related is in any case as wrongheaded as assuming the same of homonyms in European languages.


This article has some speculation on the origins of the name "Hebrew" and the associated root `-b-r. But it makes no mention whatever of `-r-b which--as I've already pointed out--is a completely different root in any case. Moreover, I can't find any information on the author, but from poking around the site, it seems we're dealing with a musician rather than an actual scholar of historical linguistics.


The very first line of this article is:Do I even need to comment on this?


So where does comparing people you disagree with to Nazis fit into the advancement of human progress according to the scientific method?

Conas a déarfá "tiresome" i nGaolainn?

_________________
Táim ag foghlaim Gaelainn na Mumhan

Tá fáilte roim nach aon cheartú!
I am a learner. Any translations offered are practice and should not be used unless confirmed.

Or, as my husband is wont to say, the first person who invokes Hitler in a debate loses. I'd say "Goebels" would fall into the same category!

Redwolf

Godwin's Law in action.

It doesn't have to be Nazis. Any time your argument consists of attacking your opponents rather than refuting their facts (or their interpretation of them), then for all intents and purposes you've already conceded.

Yes, I made a spelling error.
I would have corrected it, but I was out with my dog.
Curiously, 'h' is neither broad, nor slender, so that the glide is ineffective anyway.
Still, never mind: even with the error, the 'sentence' was understood.
That indicates that even with 'minor' errors, the information is carried correctly.
However, the perpetrator of the unintelligible message, or you good self, evidently seeks to mock me, else he, she, or it would have provided a translation.
Incidentally, is the offending word actually pronounced 'hwigim'? I've never heard it so pronounced.

_________________
Is mise, le meas, Deġeḃ.
Is Sasanaċ mé.
Tá beagán Gaoluinn agam.
As Béarla:
I see things differently.
I see things other people can't see.
Sometimes what I see is not there.
Some people call me crazy, and some of them are right.

Unintelligible?!?

_________________
Táim ag foghlaim Gaelainn na Mumhan

Tá fáilte roim nach aon cheartú!
I am a learner. Any translations offered are practice and should not be used unless confirmed.

indeed, I was not calling anyone a NAZI.
What I was complaining about was the method of perpetrating propaganda by quietly setting objectionable truths aside, and renewing the attack from a different angle.

_________________
Is mise, le meas, Deġeḃ.
Is Sasanaċ mé.
Tá beagán Gaoluinn agam.
As Béarla:
I see things differently.
I see things other people can't see.
Sometimes what I see is not there.
Some people call me crazy, and some of them are right.