Re: PS Emphatics

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
>
> =========
> > What is "s mobile" ?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_s-mobile
>
> >
> > As far as I remember,
> > I am the only one that asserts
> > PIE had prefixes.
>
> Apparently not, which you would have known if you had spent a little
> more time studying existing literature on IE historical linguistics.
> ===========
> term s-mobile (mobile pronounced as in Italian; the word is a Latin
> neuter adjective) designates the phenomenon
> [...]
> One theory of the origin of the s-mobile is that it was influenced
> by a suffix to the preceding word.

Aha. You can read.

> ===========
> A "phenomenon" (sic !) is still far away from a prefix
> and a suffix in the preceding word too.
> Arnaud
> =========

Four lines down 'phenomenon' in the first line of the article you find
'This "moveable" prefix s- '. Maybe you can't read after all.

> Asserting that PIE had no s mobile is against linguistic orthodoxy.
> Is that what you mean? However asserting PIE both had and hadn't
> prefixes is trespassing the limits of the orthodoxy of logic, ie.
> the 'tertium non datur' rule.
> =======
> I'm provoking a little bit by saying the opposite of my real
> thinking.
> Arnaud
> ===========

Hm. You said 'A and not A'. Now you're saying you said that because
you meant 'not (A and not A)'. Very provocative.

> Somehow this question came to me: theoretically, could a pope issue
> a bull, if he hadn't read the Bible?
> Torsten
> =============
> I suppose you have got
> that typical protestantic obsession with the (Catholic) pope.

The pope was obsessed with bossing us around, so we invented
Protestantism. Now we safely ignore him. Ahh!

> I prefer : Can a bull issue a bull, if he has red the Bible ?
> =============

I don't know if you read the Bible or not but you certainly do issue a
lot of bull.


Torsten