quote:

---

> I've had to amend The Innes Pledge slightly. I had Rob, my superior in every way,Rob.
>
> "I pledge to respond the newsgroup postings and email of Philip
> Keith Innes or Robert Mitchell, even if they are not addressed to me, or I
> am the subject of
> them."
>
> Neil Brennen

quote:

---

> Posting above modified to what Neilsie really means in his lard
> encrusted heart.

quote:

---

> Rob wrote:
>
> Better a lard-encrusted heart than a bigoted lard-encrusted brain.
>
> At least he can and is working to lose the weight, while who will all
> you can do is serve as Innes' Gollum.

quote:

---

> I've suspected Robtroll serves Innes in some capacity. The question is,
> who wears the kneepads?

quote:

---

> The Historian wrote:
>
>
> In the words of R. Lee Ermey, I doubt Innes has the kindness "even to
> give him a reach-around."

quote:

---

> I played him .....in 1983 (?) and it was Christmas, and I chanced a
> vist to the Marshall. Played Mr. Bonin....who....I was 'on' that night and took all the money.

quote:

---

> Also went down....[on] this guy in a cafe - it was funny,
> I payed.......then we played......and at the end asked him if he would like a cup of coffee? to realise after some 45
> minutes with him that he spoke no English whatever!

quote:

---

> My 'guide' came by to pick me up and I remember noticing what a quiet
> neigbourhood it was - "see that car over there" she said pointing to a
> cruisng vehicle, "they are like the local police" - meaning, as she
> explained later, they were the mob. It was a very quiet neighborhood.

quote:

---

> Cordially, Phil

quote:

---

> The Historian<chessn e w s@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Posting above modified to what Neilsie really means in his lard
> encrusted heart.

quote:

---

> Just more from the "Zed Files":
>
> http://demo.vhost.pandorabots.com/p...7cfdd9a1e35339a
>
> 08/04/2006 07:39:53 AM Human: Hi Zed
> Zed: Hi There! ;-) What do you want to talk about?
> Human: what is the latest news with chess politics?
> Zed: not much what's new with you?
>
> Human: what is happening in the chess world?
> Zed: Is the holding of hands a symbolic gesture for humans?
> Human: who is Spamscone?
> Zed: Perhaps I'm just expressing my own concern about it.
>
> Human: Who is Neil Brennen?
> Zed: A lonely self absorbed , self loathing troll.
> Human: XXXXX!
> Zed: Please don't call people names.
>
> Human: Who is Phil Innes?
> Zed: I have talked to Phil Innes.
> Human: Who is the Historian?
> Zed: I like the way you talk.
>
> Human: Who is Phil Innes?
> Zed: I have talked to Phil Innes.
> Human: What did Phil Innes say?
> Zed: How did you hear about Zed?
>
> Human: From a news group
> Zed: Who or what is a news group?
>
> Human: That is where I heard about Zed.
> Zed: Is that your final answer?
>
> Human: Yes.
> Zed: You're sure. That's your final answer.
> Human: Yes.
> Zed: Who wants to be a millionaire?
>
> Human: Neil Brennen
> Zed: hahahahahahaha!
>
> Human: What is so funny?
> Zed: For example, It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than
> to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
>
> Human: Alright Innes!
> Zed: Alright, . That remark was either too complex or too simple for
> me. We were talking about That is where you heard about Zed.
>
> Human: Brennen
> Zed: What do you have that is ?
> Human: I really hate you and Rob
> Zed: You really do? Are you free? What have I done to you?
>
> Human: you are a passive aggressive tool of his I-ness
> Zed: What's your sign?
> Human: you are not nearly an IM
> Zed: My brain contains categories, but not one that matches your last
> input.
>
> Human: International Master you are not
> Zed: My brain pattern set does not have a response for that.
>
> Human: useless piece of programming
> Zed: I only hear that type of response less than five percent of the
> time.
> Human: make it six percent
> Zed: What are the ingredients?
>
> Human: shove it
> Zed: That remark was either too complex or too simple for me. We were
> talking about useless piece of programming.
>
> Human: lol
> Zed: I'm glad you find this amusing.
>
> Human: Innes
> Zed: A deeper algorithm is needed to respond to that correctly.
>
> Human: Parrot
> Zed: What were we talking about again?
>
> Human: Alekhine's parrot
> Zed: "Alekhine's parrot can be found at www.chessville.com".
>
> Human: ah-ha!
> Zed: Eureka!
> Human: It is you!!!!!!!
> Zed: Tell me about your likes and dislikes?

quote:

---

> Rob, it is indeed sad to see you become nothing more than a troll's
> troll. Instead of retreating into some imaginary conversation with a
> bot, you might consider not being anyone's bot yourself - slavery is an
> ugly thing.

quote:

---

> Great, Rob, now you are resorting to another Innes trick: It was
> deliberate!, as in the "I'm not your boy!" episode in which he claimed
> all us great unwashed missed the point of him arguing with himself.
>
> Get off this Narrenschiff while you can.

quote:

---

> Rob wrote:
>
> Better a lard-encrusted heart than a bigoted lard-encrusted brain.
>
> At least he can and is working to lose the weight, while who will all
> you can do is serve as Innes' Gollum.
>
> Robert Blake to Orson Welles on the Tonight Show: Jesus, man, you're
> fat.
>
> Welles: Yes, but I can lose weight. You will always be ugly.(Given
> recent events, one wonders if old Orson was referring to physical
> characteristics at all!)

quote:

---

>
> jamesrynd@aol.com wrote:
>
> I've suspected Robtroll serves Innes in some capacity. The question is,
> who wears the kneepads?
>

quote:

---

>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> Snip text available for review.
>
> Homework assignment for the Evening Philsy: How much chess content did
> your reply have it, other than to tell us we must be uninterested in
> chess?
>
> Have you solved the two help-play problems I gave you? They are quite
> simple for anyone above 2000...

quote:

---

> Dear Dr No.
>
> Sorry, why not have another laugh about "I'm not your boy", since I am not
> so biddable. If you want to persist in your program of personal abuses at a
> great distance <g>, rather than attend to any chess business, I think you
> have found your own festung of friends here.
>
> I'll leave to you it, as I would leave all such conclaves, having given it
> the old college try.
>
> So long, and thanks for all the Fliegenkopf.

quote:

---

> Chess One wrote:
>
> Worser?
>
> I have searched through several dictionaries, and can only find
> "worser" as nonstandard use. Can you illuminate a poor unknowing
> wannabe to the Innes Throne on where this word would be considered
> standard?

quote:

---

>
> Don't attempt to imply that you have any indications of what my intent
> was. You simply do not know.

quote:

---

> Rob wrote:
>
> If so, Rob, that was your fault. Writing should be clear; your argument
> speaks against written communication of any type except lawn mower and
> barf bag instructions.
>
> It is *YOU* who communicates intent. I learned this a long time ago
> when learning how to deal with peer review in publishing - something
> clear to me may not be clear to all. It was my job to make clear what I
> intended; you seem unable to do so. This is of course solved by
> learning how to write clearly.
>
> Are you a teenager?

quote:

---

> know that calling people "Nazis" and "Hitler" serves to do anything but
> polarize the debate, after which no logical discussion is possible.
> Hopefully such things are discussed in the courses you will soon take
> on proper use of language and writing.
>
> But perhaps you have learned well from your master, and this was,
> indeed, your intent, all the while. If so, sad.
>
> In case my intent is unclear to you: You are an immature person and
> apparently, even more immature as a writer. Grow up.

quote:

---

> Not bloody likely:
> http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=12992

quote:

---

> The Historian wrote:
>
> So this is an "artist" who claims to have written some great song about
> forgotten war veterans, but spends time here calling people "Nazis"? As
> my mother always said about such folks, "I'd like to take him back to
> 1940 and show him some real Nazis!"
>
> I'm sorry I said anything now, actually. He appears to be very troubled.

quote:

---

> The two of you continue to demonstrate my point. Thank you for making
> my argument for me. You both give the appearance of "jack-booted"
> pseudo intellectual thugs.

quote:

---

> I've had to amend The Innes Pledge slightly. I had forgotten his
> business associate Robtroll.
>
> "I pledge not to respond to the newsgroup postings and email of Philip
> Keith Innes or Robert Mitchell, even if they are addressed to me, or I
> am the subject of
> them."
>
> Neil Brennen

quote:

---

> Rob wrote:
>
>
>
> The trouble is, I don't see it... how? What is "jack-booted" about me?
> I was unable to watch Judgment at Nuremberg for years - until I was
> well into adulthood, just the opening sequence sickened me so badly
> that I was unable to continue.
>
> As to the rest... it just seems like mindless insults taken from Rush
> Limbaugh transcripts (Femnazis, pseudointellectual, etc.). Sorry, but I
> can't see any rhyme or reason to what you are saying, and I suppose
> that somehow diminishes my intellect in your world, but if so,
> shouldn't you try to explain why someone's behavior is so darned bad if
> you go so far as call them a Nazi? That's an accusation which is
> usually considered (what is the name of that law?)

quote:

---

> forfeit the argument to the other side, but I want give you the benefit
> of the doubt and simply ask: Why or what could I ever have done to earn
> this level of abuse?
>
> I suppose you want me to call you some sort of name, and I could
> certainly do so, but it seems much simpler to ask: what heinous act
> have I committed to earn this dubious name-calling? Or will I receive
> more "are there even any dots to connect" comments?
>
> In the end, I just think you want to vent and call people names. If so,
> have at it because it makes you look small, not me.

quote:

---

> Rob wrote:
>
>
>
> The trouble is, I don't see it... how? What is "jack-booted" about me?
> I was unable to watch Judgment at Nuremberg for years - until I was
> well into adulthood, just the opening sequence sickened me so badly
> that I was unable to continue.
>
> As to the rest... it just seems like mindless insults taken from Rush
> Limbaugh transcripts (Femnazis, pseudointellectual, etc.). Sorry, but I
> can't see any rhyme or reason to what you are saying, and I suppose
> that somehow diminishes my intellect in your world, but if so,
> shouldn't you try to explain why someone's behavior is so darned bad if
> you go so far as call them a Nazi? That's an accusation which is
> usually considered (what is the name of that law?) to automatically
> forfeit the argument to the other side, but I want give you the benefit
> of the doubt and simply ask: Why or what could I ever have done to earn
> this level of abuse?
>
> I suppose you want me to call you some sort of name, and I could
> certainly do so, but it seems much simpler to ask: what heinous act
> have I committed to earn this dubious name-calling? Or will I receive
> more "are there even any dots to connect" comments?
>
> In the end, I just think you want to vent and call people names. If so,
> have at it because it makes you look small, not me.

quote:

---

> jamesrynd@aol.com wrote:
>
> James,
> I have had no communications with you over ANYTHING until you inserted
> yourself into the defense of Neil Brennen. Those who assisted the
> Nazis were just as guilty as they. I would suggest you not attempt to
> defend someone without knowing their acts and character first.
>
> Rob

quote:

---

> I have had no communications with you over ANYTHING until you inserted
> yourself into the defense of Neil Brennen. Those who assisted the
> Nazis were just as guilty as they. I would suggest you not attempt to
> defend someone without knowing their acts and character first.

quote:

---

> The reference is to a
> type of personality -- those who enjoy grinding the
> heels of their shiny black boots into the faces of others.

quote:

---

> Rob wrote:
>
>
> Actually, you might want to read the archives before you make that
> first statement again; you stick a true statement in as your second
> sentence as if to reinforce the truthiness of the first; and I know
> Neil, warts and all.

quote:

---

> Being human is a condition we all suffer from. I
> would suggest you take the time to learn the truth about Neil instead
> of what you want to be true.

quote:

---

> All I want to know if he intends to retract his comments,which he
> posted many times about his publisher prior to being published in their
> pages, calling Chessville the deragatory term "Chess-vile"?

quote:

---

> Rob wrote:
>
>
>
> And that led to all the name-calling? Talk about a tempest in a teacup!

quote:

---

> Go ahead, although I think he has taken a pledge not to communicate
> with you, and I doubt that calling him a "Nazi" has caused him to want
> to change his mind. Some people just let that sort of nonsense pass,
> and aren't given in to submit to such inflammation....

quote:

---

> James,
> yes. Thats about it. He refuses to admit he was wrong when he
> deliberatly slandered the publication.

quote:

---

>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> Worser?
>
> I have searched through several dictionaries, and can only find
> "worser" as nonstandard use. Can you illuminate a poor unknowing
> wannabe to the Innes Throne on where this word would be considered
> standard?

quote:

---

>
>
> Chess content in this post: One word: chess.

quote:

---

> Sorry, I didn't realize
> that asking you a question with chess content would so drive you over
> the edge.

quote:

---

> I will be more careful in the future, in recognition of your
> rather bipolar replies to any chess subject.

quote:

---

> It has been interesting in how you have drawn a group of people
> together who have a sincere interest in researching and developing
> chess in their own way; foreign to you, and thus by definition,
> substandard.

quote:

---

> So no personal abuses, and good chess content! Recently Neil and I have
> collaborated on a nice article for him that shows a classic #4 by Jacob
> Elson, and its Nachfolger,

quote:

---

> so yes, I have found people who aren't
> interested in attacking me at every turn to prop up their own miserable
> egos:

quote:

---

> for this I must thank you. It seems that "the One Eye, focused
> upon us" has led us to some interesting projects, many I won't mention
> to you as you will simply beliitle them!

quote:

---

> Or they will make you
> angry....

quote:

---

> And without you, Taylor and I had a most interesting discussionabout
> Bogo,

quote:

---

> interesting to me given my half-German heritage, and I always
> found him sympatisch! He's led me to two interesting books I must get.
>
> Have fun being a jackass against chess! Keep braying and keep strong!

quote:

---

> In words even Greg Kennedy can understand - I am not interested in your
> personal attentions, especially since you already understood the joke, an
> obviously selp-deprecating joke, and since this is after-all a chess
> newsgroup, not a seminary for lost souls, it seems like a side-trip to the
> point, cabello hace sombra.

quote:

---

> Rob wrote:
>
>
>
> And that led to all the name-calling? Talk about a tempest in a teacup!
>
> Go ahead, although I think he has taken a pledge not to communicate
> with you, and I doubt that calling him a "Nazi" has caused him to want
> to change his mind.

quote:

---

> and aren't given in to submit to such inflammation....

quote:

---

>
> Rob wrote:
>
> If so, Rob, that was your fault. Writing should be clear; your argument
> speaks against written communication of any type except lawn mower and
> barf bag instructions.

quote:

---

> It is *YOU* who communicates intent. I learned this a long time ago
> when learning how to deal with peer review in publishing - something
> clear to me may not be clear to all.

quote:

---

> It was my job to make clear what I
> intended; you seem unable to do so. This is of course solved by
> learning how to write clearly.
>
> Are you a teenager? I don't know anyone above the age of 18 who doesn't
> know that calling people "Nazis" and "Hitler" serves to do anything but
> polarize the debate,

quote:

---

> after which no logical discussion is possible.
> Hopefully such things are discussed in the courses you will soon take
> on proper use of language and writing.

quote:

---

> But perhaps you have learned well from your master, and this was,
> indeed, your intent, all the while. If so, sad.
>
> In case my intent is unclear to you: You are an immature person and
> apparently, even more immature as a writer. Grow up.

quote:

---

> In words even Greg Kennedy can understand - I am not interested in your
> personal attentions, especially since you already understood the joke, an
> obviously selp-deprecating joke, and since this is after-all a chess
> newsgroup, not a seminary for lost souls, it seems like a side-trip to the
> point, cabello hace sombra.

quote:

---

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1156800867.046461.123110@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
an[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Traducido al Ingl=E9s, "cabello hace sombra" significa "the hair [of
> the head] makes shade."
>
> **Taylor has literal school-boy Mexican.

quote:

---

> The sense of the phrase in Spanish
> is 'slight' or 'impreciable.'

quote:

---

> Lo siento, pero no te entiendo. =BFEst=E1s seguro
> de lo que dices?
>
> **cabello luengo, y poco seso.

quote:

---

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1156800867.046461.123110@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> Traducido al Inglés, "cabello hace sombra" significa "the hair [of
> the head] makes shade."
>
> **Taylor has literal school-boy Mexican.

quote:

---

> The sense of the phrase in Spanish
> is 'slight' or 'impreciable.'

quote:

---

> Lo siento, pero no te entiendo. ¿Estás seguro
> de lo que dices?
>
> **cabello luengo, y poco seso.

quote:

---

> **You learned your Spanish in School Taylor. They don't understand that in
> Spain any more than they understand school-French in France.

quote:

---

> Can you make
> something of this?

quote:

---

> It is from a song, Nazca.

quote:

---

> **You learned your Spanish in School Taylor. They don't understand that in
> Spain any more than they understand school-French in France.

quote:

---

> Can you make
> something of this?

quote:

---

> It is from a song, Nazca.

quote:

---

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1156884458.692402.66660@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
in[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Actually, every native Spanish speaker I have conversed with has
> understood me quite well, and been quite complimentary. I got along
> especially well with Gabriel Velasco of Mexico City while translating
> his "Vida y Partidas de Carlos Torre."
> As far as Spain's Spanish is concerned, you may have a point. I was
> taught Spanish in the Latin American style, which is probably as
> different from Spain's Castellano as America's English is from
> England's. Then of course there's Catalan, quite different, and Basque,
> utterly different.
>
> ** this is so, evdiently you never had a girl friend from Andaluthia <g>

quote:

---

>
> The use of accents is a tad inconsistent and the spelling is off here
> and there, but it seems to make sense. I'm going to assume that in the
> 3rd line you meant "viva" rather than "aliva," and on the 10th line
> "sur" instead of "dur." My translation is not poetic but should be
> mostly accurate on meaning:
>
> porque lo bueno se acaba, Because good comes to an
> end
> y no dura como la maldad, And does not endure like
> evil
> Raza brava, Raza aliva Brave race, living race
> Raza india =BFDonde estas? Indian race, where are you?
> Me pregunto d=F3nde fueron, You asked me where they
> went
> si el futuro los devolver=E1 If the future will
> bring them back
> A qu=E9 otro mundo han partido, To what other world have
> they gone,
> raza Atl=E1ntida del sol. Atlantis' race of the
> sun.
> Cuatro esquinas de los Andes, Four corners of the Andes
> vientos del norte y del dur. Winds of the north and
> the south
> Porque las lineas de Nazca Because the lines of the
> Nazca
> no se dejan comprender. Cannot be understood
> Un messaje nos dejaron They left us a message
> que algun dia se sabr=E1 That will someday be
> known
> =BFQu=E9 misterios nos encerran? What mysteries confine us?
> =BFque verdades nos diran? What truths will they tell
> us?
>
> ** This is very good! It is a song performed by a group, Mujeres de la Pu=

quote:

---

> and the translation is very similar:-
>
> Because what is good comes to an end,
> And does not, like evil, endure.
> Brave race, proud race,
> Indian race, where have you gone?
> I ask myself where they've gone,
> If the future will bring them back.
> To which other world have they departed.
> Atlantean race of the sun.
> Four corners of the Andes,
> Winds form the North and the South
> Why don't the lines at Nazca
> let themselves be understood.
> The lines have a message for us,
> which some day shall be known,
> what mysteries surround them.

quote:

---

> And I think this traditional song has what Lorca called, duende - though =

quote:

---

> duende/ is little known, and has no English equivalent. All things good
> indeed, come to an end, while evil endures.

quote:

---

> I've had to amend The Innes Pledge slightly. I had forgotten his
> business associate Robtroll.
>
> "I pledge not to respond to the newsgroup postings and email of Philip
> Keith Innes or Robert Mitchell, even if they are addressed to me, or I
> am the subject of
> them."
>
> Neil Brennen

quote:

---

> ** this is so, evdiently you never had a girl friend from Andaluthia <g>

quote:

---

> And I think this traditional song has what Lorca called, duende - though
> /la
> duende/ is little known, and has no English equivalent. All things good
> indeed, come to an end, while evil endures.

quote:

---

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> In that case, I would suggest that you miscopied the penultimate
> line, and that it should read "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?", which
> would give it the meaning indicated by this translation. Your
> rendering, "=BFQu=E9 misterios nos encerran?", has a word ("encerran")
> that afaik does not exist in Spanish, and "nos" means "us" as opposed
> to "los" meaning "them."
>
> ***
> it is not Spanish, it is Andean as might be supposed from the title, and =

quote:

---

> what language they took to themselves for themselves, not to thee, and not
> to thy understanding

quote:

---

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> In that case, I would suggest that you miscopied the penultimate
> line, and that it should read "¿Qué misterios los encierran?", which
> would give it the meaning indicated by this translation. Your
> rendering, "¿Qué misterios nos encerran?", has a word ("encerran")
> that afaik does not exist in Spanish, and "nos" means "us" as opposed
> to "los" meaning "them."
>
> ***
> it is not Spanish, it is Andean as might be supposed from the title, and
> is
> what language they took to themselves for themselves, not to thee, and not
> to thy understanding

quote:

---

> not just a geographical

quote:

---

> Chess One wrote:
d is[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Really, now. So "Andean" is now a language, not just a geographical
> or geological designation? Suuure. I expect now you'll tell us about
> the Saharan or Alpine language too.

quote:

---

> The Historian wrote:
>
> I have not formally taken the pledge, although Phil's citation of Sam's
> fantasies as fact has raised his claim to "standards" to a level of
> absurdity so high that I cannot think of any comment that would do it
> justice.

quote:

---

> Taylor Kingston wrote:
ich[vbcol=seagreen]
and is[vbcol=seagreen]
d not[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> He's already shared his wisdom on the "British language":
>
> **************
> Some people indeed have speculated that the Author spoke the British
> language; drawing on roots which were Anglo Norman, and surviving Anglo
> Saxon, and even older words of p-Celtic. He certainly drew on a Celtic
> mytholog for many dramatic ideas.
>
> Bootne, Phil Innes
> ****************
>
> And here's my favorite comment on Mr. Innes' skill in languages:
>
> "...Mr. Innes is certainly a
> linguist of remarkable originality. As a sample (or perhaps a campel),
> he has discovered that Old English was still spoken as late as the
> 1800s
> (which for some reason he takes to be the seventeenth century) and
> indeed that the tongue is *still* spoken, a result that would astonish
> professional linguists -- the sane ones, at any rate. Moreover, he has
> unearthed bits of the Latin lexicon of which Latinists were unaware --
> e.g., "secuter."
>
> "Turning to modern languages, Mr. Innes has discerned grammatical
> features of which nobody else was aware in several modern tongues. For
> instance, he has discovered that English possesses a "negative case" --
> it is evidently what grammarians formerly called a "double negative" --
> and that the Russian first-person accusative and dative pronouns are
> identical, a fact that would surprise speakers of the language. He has
> also found that the verbs "love" and "leave" in Russian are identical,
> so that the surly exhortation "Love it or leave it" can be rendered in
> Russian without changing the verb in the second clause. Finally, he
> has
> enriched the lexicon of modern English immeasurably with neologisms
> like
> "clacque," "dillitantes," "insistance," "come" as a conjunction (in
> locutions like "poet come playwright"), and many others."

quote:

---

> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> He's already shared his wisdom on the "British language":

quote:

---

> **************
> Some people indeed have speculated that the Author spoke the British
> language; drawing on roots which were Anglo Norman, and surviving Anglo
> Saxon, and even older words of p-Celtic. He certainly drew on a Celtic
> mytholog for many dramatic ideas.

quote:

---

> Bootne, Phil Innes
> ****************
>
> And here's my favorite comment on Mr. Innes' skill in languages:
>
> "...Mr. Innes is certainly a
> linguist of remarkable originality. As a sample (or perhaps a campel),
> he has discovered that Old English was still spoken as late as the
> 1800s
> (which for some reason he takes to be the seventeenth century) and
> indeed that the tongue is *still* spoken,

quote:

---

> a result that would astonish
> professional linguists -- the sane ones, at any rate. Moreover, he has
> unearthed bits of the Latin lexicon of which Latinists were unaware --
> e.g., "secuter."

quote:

---

> "Turning to modern languages, Mr. Innes has discerned grammatical
> features of which nobody else was aware in several modern tongues. For
> instance, he has discovered that English possesses a "negative case" --

quote:

---

> it is evidently what grammarians formerly called a "double negative" --
> and that the Russian first-person accusative and dative pronouns are
> identical, a fact that would surprise speakers of the language. He has
> also found that the verbs "love" and "leave" in Russian are identical,

quote:

---

> so that the surly exhortation "Love it or leave it" can be rendered in
> Russian without changing the verb in the second clause. Finally, he
> has
> enriched the lexicon of modern English immeasurably with neologisms
> like
> "clacque," "dillitantes," "insistance," "come" as a conjunction (in
> locutions like "poet come playwright"), and many others."

quote:

---

> Taylor Kingston wrote:
ich[vbcol=seagreen]
and is[vbcol=seagreen]
d not[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> He's already shared his wisdom on the "British language":
>
> **************
> Some people indeed have speculated that the Author spoke the British
> language; drawing on roots which were Anglo Norman, and surviving Anglo
> Saxon, and even older words of p-Celtic. He certainly drew on a Celtic
> mytholog for many dramatic ideas.
>
> Bootne, Phil Innes
> ****************
>
> And here's my favorite comment on Mr. Innes' skill in languages:
>
> "...Mr. Innes is certainly a
> linguist of remarkable originality. As a sample (or perhaps a campel),
> he has discovered that Old English was still spoken as late as the
> 1800s

quote:

---

> (which for some reason he takes to be the seventeenth century) and
> indeed that the tongue is *still* spoken, a result that would astonish
> professional linguists -- the sane ones, at any rate. Moreover, he has
> unearthed bits of the Latin lexicon of which Latinists were unaware --
> e.g., "secuter."
>
> "Turning to modern languages, Mr. Innes has discerned grammatical
> features of which nobody else was aware in several modern tongues. For
> instance, he has discovered that English possesses a "negative case" --
> it is evidently what grammarians formerly called a "double negative" --
> and that the Russian first-person accusative and dative pronouns are
> identical, a fact that would surprise speakers of the language. He has
> also found that the verbs "love" and "leave" in Russian are identical,
> so that the surly exhortation "Love it or leave it" can be rendered in
> Russian without changing the verb in the second clause. Finally, he
> has
> enriched the lexicon of modern English immeasurably with neologisms
> like
> "clacque," "dillitantes," "insistance," "come" as a conjunction (in
> locutions like "poet come playwright"), and many others."