Re[4]: [tied] Re: Syncope

At 12:51:17 AM on Wednesday, March 31, 2004,
enlil@... wrote:

> Brian:

>> Are you claiming that <mice> is analogical? It's
>> completely regular: the PGmc nom.pl. is *mu:siz, yielding
>> OE my:s by I-umlaut.

> Two-to-one. Even Jens just said that [ab/um]laut is
> analogical.

I-umlaut is not analogical; it's phonologically conditioned.

> So yeah. At any rate, the point is that it isn't IE ablaut
> even though it looks like it

In what way?

> and even though IE ablaut was the basis for more recent
> processes like this I-umlaut.

What is your evidence for that claim?

> At any rate, it looks like you're more interested in
> nitpicking offtopic details rather than follow the
> original point now. Who cares?

I do. I'm not inclined to put much faith in your grand
generalizations in areas about which I don't yet know much
when you get the details wrong in the areas with which I am
somewhat familiar; ultimately any sound generalization has
to rest on just such details.

Brian