Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!dave
From: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Apostasy
Message-ID: <360@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 07:10:58 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.360
Posted: Tue Feb  5 07:10:58 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Feb-85 10:01:55 EST
References: <275@mhuxi.UUCP> <391@wxlvax.UUCP> <353@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Distribution: net
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 17
Summary: more on the linguistics

In article <353@lsuc.UUCP> I write:
||Linguistically impossible. The initial "mem" in "meshumad" is a
||prefix. The root is SH/M/D. The shin (SH) is a strong consonant
||which never disappears in word variations.

Now I've been castigated by a correspondent who points out that,
although he also doesn't think the words are related, my assertions
about the linguistics aren't necessarily valid, since the SH isn't
as strong (between languages) as I though, and the initial M in
Muhamad could be a prefix too. I'll defer to his better knowledge
of linguistics. If anyone really cares to see the analysis I could
send you a copy.

Dave Sherman
-- 
{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave
{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave