Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

Jens:

> Not correct. Pronouns alternate, so do verbs. Substantives have
> reduced the alternation to *-e and *-aH2, otherwise *-o-. I know of
> no alternating substantives, and I don't think non-alternating
> pronouns can be demonstrated either. They can be **postulated**, and
> that's what I say you're doing, and that seriously diminishes the
> validity of your reasoning.

(I shake my head.) What diminishes a theory is when it immediately
is contradicted by facts and then the theorymaker doesn't accept
that and so continues on with it ad nauseum.

Here, we see that if what you say is true, *yo- should alternate.
It doesn't at all. You don't accept this painful fact. So you
pretend that *-z solves things. You'll never wake up.


= gLeN