Talk:ache

Etymology
If the main entry version is accurate and a Proto-Germanic root did exist[6], what follows is entirely logical[8]. If, however, it did not exist[4], then all forms in Old English and other Germanic languages - due to their substantial variation in meaning - were borrowed in from a pre-historic form[7], carried through as akin to the Spanish stem ACHA-[7], also with a parallel in Welsh[5]. Only then could such lexemes be ultimately akin to Greek ACHOS[3] or ΑΓΟΣ = 'AGOS'[5], possibly ultimately from the √ of ; via Phœnician[6], whence the other roots[3], including that of ΑΓΧΩ 'angcho'[8], to which all the presented cognates point semantically. Andrew H. Gray 09:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Andrew (talk)

[0] means 'Absolutely not; [1] means 'Exceedingly unlikely'; [2] means 'Very dubious'; [3] means 'Questionable'; [4] means 'Possible'; [5] means 'Probable'; [6] means 'Likely'; [7] means 'Most Likely' or *Unattested; [8] means 'Attested'; [9] means 'Obvious' - only used for close matches within the same language or dialect, at linkable periods. '2' inserted in root words stands for a laryngeal to represent an 'a' that does not exist. √ means original or earliest root.


 * I don't follow. Semitic and Indo-European are not widely accepted to be related at all, and the other connections proposed are inconsistent with known sound laws. See Appendix:Proto-Germanic/akaną. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is not only a pre-historic Spanish stem, but also a remote kinship with a Welsh lexeme. The so-called Germanic cognates (and they certainly are cognates in the Germanic dialects), may not even have a Proto-Germanic root or even a P.I.E. root.  The roots of Hebrew are actually older than even P.I.E. Iberian is not Japhetic, but Semitic and therefore it is only in the event that the Welsh and Spanish lexemes are remotely akin to ACAN (to ache) that the Hebrew lexeme is remotely applicable. Andrew H. Gray 15:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Andrew (talk)
 * Sorry, this is all complete gobbledygook. I have studied Indo-European historical linguistics, you have obviously not. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, it becomes necessary to look beyond science. Andrew H. Gray 14:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Andrew (talk)