User talk:Melissa Ann Kent (3L, VLS)

First of all, the Elder Futhark is an alphabet, not a language. Second, it has nothing to do with Finnish, which is completely unrelated to the languages that were written in that alphabet. Third, there was no reason to add all of that to the entry for an obscure word for flying. If you want to write articles, go to Wikipedia- but be prepared to justify your content. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * All language is linked back to the original alphabets. To be closed minded about etomilogy is to be ignorant.  The E.F. ruins provide insight to how Slavic languages came about.  I urge you to open your mind and take a look at Burgess's work in "A Mouthful of Air, Language, Languages, Especially English."
 * Let me go through this point by point:
 * No, language has been around far longer than writing has. The only reason etymology relies so much on writing is that it's the only direct evidence of past stages of spoken language.
 * Rejecting random gibberish isn't a sign of a closed mind, and the fact that you can't even spell "etymology" shows how little you know about the subject.
 * The Elder Futhark was mostly used to write on various small items, with later examples on large rocks. This has nothing to do with anything one could call "ruins".
 * There is very little connection between the Elder Futhark, used to write Germanic languages, and anything Slavic. What's more Finnish has nothing to do with either Germanic or Slavic- it's completely unrelated to either.
 * Please don't blame Burgess for your bizarre ideas- unlike you, he actually knew what he was talking about.
 * I'm sure you're not going to understand my points above, but let me warn you that you are not to add content like you added to entää to any Wiktionary entry, and you will be blocked if you do. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)