Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 22412
Date: 2003-05-30

Jens:
>Forget about winning and losing.

This is why we can never agree. This is all about winning and losing.
One idea must surely be closer to the actual truth than another.
So one idea (or even a group of ideas) _must_ "win" over another.

You fail to prioritize theories which explains your confusion.


>I take the traditional Uralic reconstruction *luke-k-me-k or *luke-t-me-k
>'we read' (Finn. luemme) to represent a stem
>put in the plural [...]

Apparently, Jens thinks that Uralic speakers could read in the
5th millenium BCE.


>Corresponding IE forms such as 1du *gWhn-w� and 1pl
>*gWhn-m�, 2pl *gWhn-t� I derive from earlier *gWhen-g-
>me-g, *gWhen-d-me-g, *gWhen-d-te-g [... and on and on
>without stop ...]

I'm not sure what adjective can accurately describe this baseless
assumption. I only enjoy new ideas if they are intelligent. Even
a baseless idea can at least be entertaining if it is clever. This one
loses points on all grounds.

It is well understood that the IE dual is a late innovation, assuredly
unrelated to anything in Uralic. The Uralic dual relates to its own
numeral for "two". There is no basis for this pretend marker **-g,
but no doubt Jens will appeal yet again to his distressing mantra:
"But we don't REALLY know what happened so it COULD be true..."
Thus, a herd of unicorns are galloping on Mars.


>That most inanimates do not take *-m in IE may be due to their
>being too low on a scale of animacy to be topicalized.

With this quote, I end on a note of refreshing agreement.


- gLeN

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail