As it so happens I just checked something and yes the glitch was on my end but I wasn't reporting what happened out of some bad intent. I didn't know.

What poor english? I am hurt to the quick.

Seriously how does one verify everything? I noticed other people making comments without a source ... somebody's father's friend is a source? I won't go there!

There is no way to prove the derivation from sanskrit (which I did say was speculated upon not a conclusive fact) we don't even know how it would be pronounced really and it isn't a complete word but a root. Is there a connection? That is speculated to be so but that's as far as it goes. So how does one discuss pertinent data that is at best only reasoned speculation?

Secondly the declarative statements which I didn't cite a source for (the german and dutch and other cognates) are only words in a foreign language. If you are saying that they need to have a source cited then you are full of it. Since when?

That leaves my saying that it might be one of the oldest words still extant in english. Considering that I said that should I have quoted myself as a source then? Please look at the choice of wording I used to express that thought. I asked people to consider it. Why does that need a source cited.

I asked in all sincerity for someone to show me where I needed to cite a source. Restating general rules about citing sources is not valid. No one is disputing them. I asked to be shown where they applied in my case. Please point out where you think I needed to cite a source so that I will know in what context these rules would apply.

Thank you... is that a space bar mark on your forehead? Don't worry it'll fade eventually.