Re: [tied] -osyo 4 (was: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?)

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 enlil@... wrote:

> But I thought *gWo:us is in reality *gWohWus (*gWohW- being "graze").
> Any "overlength" would be from a laryngeal. As is most often the case,
> no double-long vowels need be employed. That industry has been
> downsizing for the longest time, so those double-long vowels are being
> shuffled laterally into more shorter, parttime, low-wage vowel
> positions. Yes, this new world vowel economy may cause some stress for
> those who still think that they need double-long vowels for their
> latest theories but we have to keep our chin up in this new paradigm
> and accept the global needs of cost-effective strategies. In this way
> we can all benefit from a win-win solution  ;)
>
> Blech, well, that's enough of the Linguistic NewSpeak for today.

Anybody who finds this attempt at a travesty amusing may be reminded that
none of the author's opinions are misrepresented in it. And that *is* a
joke.

Jens