> Exactly. No foundation. You instead start with a bunch of looseunravels
> threads and weave them together to form a pretty garment that
> in no time. You need one to have a strong theory.Exactly. If I had a "foundation" I would get a strong theory that
> You've made clear, in contrast, that the foundation of your viewsrely
> on your 'abstract analysis' of the IE vowel system.I honestly think that's all we've got.
> > We both do abstract analysis of the interface of phonological and
> > morphological alternations. Your analysis is not different from
> > kind, only in the implementation.is a
> My analysis of the accent shifting as being underlyingly regular
> inevitable conclusion, period. Your analysis of the vowel systemis one
> of many and is not a clear base conclusion. Why MONOvocalic,especially
> when completely unattested?You have simply written in things in your preforms that could be
> Why not DIvocalic or TRIvocalic (the moreThere is certainly not even a system with two root vowels of equal
> common pattern)? You provide no clear answer.
> It looks like it's justIt's exactly the other way around. Why don't you tell us why your
> willy-nilly with you and you don't feel accountable to your theory.
> > One cannot sensibly begin with a conclusion. You are construing a
> > daevic world where all the good words have come to mean bad
> Did you just learn 'daevic' today? I appreciate your poetic
> Even though it's irrelevant to the debate, it's helping myvocabulary.