Me:
>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?
Jens:
>Well, I wish I knew! I am trying to find out about it, telling about
>it in the process and accepting whatever helpful pointers anybody
>interested may have. There is no point in demanding a fully detailed
>account at this time for it could only be given in a way that would
>really deserve the kind of hostile criticism you are dishing out.
I'd like to contribute what I can if possible, but how can I if you haven't
formulated what your idea is about? Any level of precision would do
but apparently you are too afraid of my serrated criticism that I'd
naturally give out if I don't see the logic in an idea. Call me a fighter,
call me a natural born debater. Ironically, I think criticism is still
earned,
this time for presenting an idea to vague to comment on.
Were you suggesting a sound change that caused two very seperate
forms *-u and *-ro-? Something like syllabic *-r > *-u while thematic
*-r-o- remained unchanged? Is that it?
I think you mentioned something about *-u and *-ro- appearing in
different phonetic contexts. Can you elaborate on this? Did you mean
that the choice between one suffix or the other is dependent on the
phonetics of the root involved, somewhat like the choice of s- and
l-genitives in Etruscan? If so, describe these phonetics. Maybe I'm
missing something.
= 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