Re: Re[2]: [tied] *kW- "?"

Mate:

> Maybe you should consider reconstruction instead of
> "logic".

Maybe you should pay more attention to what is said
instead of making snappy comebacks. You are wrong
by simple logical principles that Brian and I both
agree to. If I didn't understand Logic, I wouldn't
be able to program at all.

> It is logically instable though, because you insist
> on reconstructing something (the uvular) that shows
> no trace anywhere.

Erh, Mate, are you aware of the history of IE
'laryngeals'? The theory was proposed _before_ the
discovery of these sounds in Hittite. Please, for
the love of Pete, read up!

> Just repeating that something is superior does not
> actually make it superior.

This is true without a doubt. However, you don't
understand and so I have to find various ways of
repeating the same thing until you finally understand
the things that you evidently still don't.

> It seems like linguistic reality is your problem,
> not mine.

Ain't that the truth. When you choose to conform to
reality, let me know.


= gLeN




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com