> Suggesting that the form without r or n could be original. A
> reconstruction is not the place to show the vagaries of a
> particular dialect.
> I am sure they are both trying to show the vagaries of the
> protolanguage in the form addressed and do not want to make
> unsubstantiated choices.
Yet these vagueries, if they can truly be dramatized to
that level, are those that your views ignore equally.
Clearly this was mentioned to accomplish something that is
outside the bounds of logic but is well within the domain of
psychology. That purpose was to sabotage a path of reasoning
that would lead us to the conclusion that your ideas are not
as correct as you purport them to be. Rather than welcoming
change, you did the human thing by resisting it. Due to your
own personality template, you perceived this path of reasoning
as an attack on you rather than taking it as a proper
assessment of your particular ideas in question. Hence by
resisting this path, you will be able to thwart new ideas
that contradict your own perception of reality no matter how
false it may be. You've used this strategy before, for the same
purpose. I would like to call this the "Horrible *ya Neurosis".
> If there are several IE branches actually reflecting, say, *dhug&2-
> té:(:) without /-r/, and several others reflecting *-té:r in the
> same word, there is a problem for reconstruction.
You wish there to be a problem desperately. Can't admit being in
error. Must continue this silly smokescreen. Clearly, if the
paradigm shows *r as a whole, then *-r or even *-rs must be the
original state of affairs in the nominative, regardless of whether
you want to reconstruct *pxte:r or your **pxte: anyway.
So... there is no logical point to this but to distract.
> If you do not want to be guilty of making unsubstantiated
> choices you must keep the possibility open that both forms
> belonged to the protolanguage and were both inherited from it.
Yes, we "must". We'd be "guilty" otherwise. We'd be "bad" people
if we were to make the "wrong" choice. And frankly, how then
could we live with ourselves if we made such a blundering error?
In that way, we will become hopelessly confused not knowing what
is correct and what isn't as we open wide all possibilities,
thereby allowing Jens to escape unscathed from his booboo during
the mayhem <:) Some make mistakes, others deny them brilliantly.
> How would Lith. dukte:~ and Skt. duhitá: proceed from a form in
> *-té:r ?
Common, everyday erosion.