Miguel, you aren't staying focused on my viewpoints from post
to post. Your answers don't address anything. They are merely
argumentative and contrary to each and every thing I state as
if a five-year-old child were playing a game of "I know you are
but what am I?"
This behaviour of yours is so out of control in this particular
thread that you eventually end up trying to convince me of
things I already accept by the third or fourth post (such as
with the *-i- and *-u- stem genitives in *-s that I even brought
up in the first place... ????)!
You're telling me that **pkwon- exists, and I'm sorry, *p- is
not actually attested anywhere. It just isn't, so it's called
"conjecture". That reconstruction is not generally accepted
and the true accepted form is *kwon-. Regardless of Hamp or any
other more dubious authors you choose to hide behind, facts are
facts. That's what makes _you_ wrong.
But before anything, derivations of a root have nothing to do
with that root's own declensional system. Derivations based
on roots or stems are new stems that do not necessarily connect
with the root from which it came. For example, "good" now has
nothing to do with "goodbye" -- They've gone their seperate
paths. "Goodbye" has no bearing on the inflection of "good",
just as any derivations in *pd- have no bearing on the
declension of *pod-.
So what you're saying is a bizarre mixture of conjecture and
irrelevancies that don't add anything meaningful to this
discussion. I would appreciate that you first elaborate on
how an IE derivative _does_ have bearing on the original stem's declensional
system.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail