• TabbsTheBat@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        21 hours ago

        They’re referring to proto-indo-european im pretty sure, and the similarity of the origin word for name to the sound no-men/no-man, this goes into the sovereign citizen thing that they were talking about earlier than a name is an assignment of office, so a name isn’t a man aka isn’t you

        And that feeds into their conspiracy theory that the name given to you is actually someone else’s so if you refuse your name you become a sovereign citizen, and don’t need to follow certain laws as they apply to your name not you as an individual

        • hakase@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          The ridiculous part, of course, being that Modern English isn’t special, that “no man” didn’t mean anything 6,000 years ago when PIE was spoken, and that its contemporary equivalent, smth. like “*ne dʰǵʰemṓn” doesn’t mean anything in Modern English.

          Also, the actual reconstructed form of “name”, *h₃néh₃mn̥, looks a lot less like “no-man” than they seem to think.

          • TabbsTheBat@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Ye it’s closer to latin than PIE :3… of course given how they type, and their thoughts on word relation, them not knowing the word doesn’t seem that surprising lol

        • SGforce@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Wow, nice catch. Same root as “Nomenclature”. Totally wooshed me on that.

  • Rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Hell yeah brother, couldn’t have said it better myself. Now pass me one of them danged bud lights over here haha, hell yeah brother.