Jens:
>You are distorting what you have chosen to talk about. Language does
>not abound with analogical changes that lend themselves to algebraic
>analysis in terms of purely phonetic laws.
Nope. That's true. So maybe you should deal with that cruel reality
about language and stop trying to come up with mathematical forumalae
to describe something organic. That doesn't mean adopting theories
willy-nilly either. It simply means that language is not as precise as you
try to make it out to be with your rules. As a result, the picture becomes
distorted. Your theories on a whole of Pre-IE reflect this distorted,
mathematical quality. A theorized language that could only be spoken
by robots.
I'm still not even sure what you mean with the *u/*ro thing. You
have a talented knack for steeping your ideas in arcane poetry and
ambling around a message without saying directly what it is. Miguel is
also trying to goad it out of you like a bone from a rabid dog.
For me, the question is: What is the precise chain of events that you
have in mind from beginning to end that you think brought about this
complementary distribution in IE itself?
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca