Its an insult to me because you spend so much time telling me im wrong and assuming that you are an authority. If only you followed thru with proofs which i a have stated i am willing to read, but you often dont provide. Claiming authority or knowledge is not enuff when someone asks to see it. I also fail to see why you continue to repeat these opinions, not facts. As long as you fail to back it up with stuff everyone can read its YOUR OPINION.
When I post to this forum, I never want to make my posts rest on any supposed "authority" I have. That's no better than "It's true because the Society says so". I really dislike arguments from authority. I always want to make it about the logic, the evidence, and explain how my opinion is reached. That is why my posts here are often long essays because I try to show how I come to my views, and if there are other disagreeing opinions, then the discussion would be directed towards the evidence and logic that were supplied. But the way you understand language is so fundamentally different from mine, it would take a lot of explanation of linguistics basics, methodologies, etc. and I really am not interested in doing that in the way I normally do. When we had that discussion last year on the Flavian hypothesis it was a similar thing, I wrote some very long essays about historical methodology and how evidence is assessed in order to distinguish between coincidence and genuine connections, and that was very time-consuming, and I really don't have the time and energy to do something like that again here. I don't mean that at all as an insult to you; I am just more than happy to agree to disagree, while pointing to some resources that could further explain where I'm coming from. I've already posted an article showing mathematically how easy it is for coincidences to arise at random and here is a list of "amazing coincidences" between unrelated languages that have absolutely no etymological connection. You find almost any coincidence meaningful, whereas linguists have principles and methodologies for establishing genetic relationship and borrowing. If you are interested in learning more about these, I would recommend you read some basic introductions to linguistics and comparative linguistics (such as this one or this, both of these books have discussions on how to determine relatedness, as well as the arbitrariness between sound and meaning). Other than that, I would just like to agree to disagree on this.
Just to give a quick example, you say that "Ra" is the source of the Spanish word for king rey and English words related to royalty like "reign" and "royal". There is no evidence for this, and no serious historical linguist has ever proposed such an etymology. Your opinion is simply based on a superficial phonetic similarity. The etymology of the English and Spanish words is well-understood. Both derive from Latin re:x, re:gis (gen.) "king" through normal attested sound changes (cf. Spanish ley "law" from Latin le:x, le:gis). This Latin word was not borrowed from Egyptian (and why would they borrow a word for "king"? why from Egyptian? why not the Egyptian word for "king"? Why not then take the name of the Egyptian god most associated with kingship, Horus?), but goes all the way back to Proto-Indo-European, a language spoken long before historical Egypt. How do we know the word is that ancient? Through normal comparative methodology that shows regular sound correspondences; e.g. PIE *re:g- (*re:gs, nominative singular) "tribal king" > Sanskrit ra:j "king, ruler" ra:jya "royal", Latin re:x, re:gis "king", re:gius "royal", Gaulish ri:x, ri:g (gen.), Old Irish ri: "king", Welsh rhi "prince, lord", rhiain "queen, lady" (cf. Latin re:gina "queen"), Gothic reiks "king", Old High German ri:hhi "realm" (whence German reich), etc. Nor was the word borrowed from another language, this noun was derived straightforwardly from a verbal root; Latin re:x, re:gis "king" is related to the Latin verb regere "to lead straight, guide, rule". PIE *re:g- is a lengthened form of the PIE verbal root *reg- "to move in a straight line, straighten, direct, lead" (with adjectival derivative *rek-to), which equally has sound correspondences across the board: Sanskrit rjyati "stretches itself", irayjati "arranges, orders, decrees", raji:yas "straight", raji "straight", Avestan raz- "sort, order, arrange", razan "command, alignment", rašta- "straight", Greek ορεγω "to reach, stretch out, stretch forth" (with a prothetic vowel), Latin regere "to lead straight, guide, rule", rectus "right, straight", re:gula "a straight piece of wood", rige:re "to be stiff, erect", Old Irish reg- "stretch out", recht "law, authority", Welsh rhaith "law", Breton reiz "order, law", Proto-Germanic *ro:kjan, *rekinaz "stretch, set straight" > Gothic rakjan "reach up, stretch", Old High German recchen "raise, lift up, define", Old Norse rekja "stretch, declare", Old English gerecenian "arrange in order, recount" (whence English "reckon"), Proto-Germanic *rehtaz > Gothic raihts "right, straight", Old High German reht "right, straight", Old Icelandic rettr "true, right", Old English riht (whence English "right"), etc. This is a native PIE word, the derivation is normal, whatever vague resemblence you find with Egyptian Re (which even lacks the /g/ found in the PIE roots) is purely coincidental.