> I insist on their right to be considered at least to the extent andInsisting for what purpose? Abstract monovocalism is a pointless game.
> in the sense that one such exists in Sanskrit.
> In reconstructing ancestral forms of IE, we both depart from differingJens:
> initial conclusions.
> No, I don't believe I have any.Exactly. No foundation. You instead start with a bunch of loose
> Basically yes, but there is a qualitative side to this also. SomeWhich is why we don't start with those choices when first constructing
> choices may be so pitiful as to be valueless.
> If one theory can explain two forms out of a thousand, and another onePerhaps not, but it's important to have a methodology as opposed to
> three, and nobody has anything better yet, even the three-hits theory
> is not likely to be anywhere near the truth.
> You've made clear, in contrast, that the foundation of your views relyJens:
> on your 'abstract analysis' of the IE vowel system.
> We both do abstract analysis of the interface of phonological andMy analysis of the accent shifting as being underlyingly regular is a
> morphological alternations. Your analysis is not different from mine in
> kind, only in the implementation.
>> However, your analysis, just like the same analysis on Sanskrit, isI don't put any weight on such analyses. My analysis is different and
>> not guaranteed to have any bearing on the vowel system of its prestage.
> That goes for yours as well.
> One cannot sensibly begin with a conclusion. You are construing aDid you just learn 'daevic' today? I appreciate your poetic rhetoric.
> daevic world where all the good words have come to mean bad things.