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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> 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.

There are no such facts. They have only been postulated, quite
possibly wrongly.

> Here, we see that if what you say is true, *yo- should alternate.
> It doesn't at all.

Nobody knows. There are no nonambiguous forms.

> You don't accept this painful fact. So you
> pretend that *-z solves things. You'll never wake up.

Is this where I say, Likewise, I'm sure?

Jens

> = gLeN