Re[2]: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 54202
Date: 2008-02-27

At 7:00:25 PM on Tuesday, February 26, 2008, alexandru_mg3
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:

[...]

>> A hapax legomenon is not enough to build a grand theory on.

> One is enough if Many Scholars agreed on the text of the
> inscription

The text of the inscription is not at issue: no one here is
denying that it reads <talgidai>. The point is that this is
the ONLY runic inscription that uses the form <-dai>. Since
it is apparently the unique secure example of the form,
there is no way to exclude the possibility that it is simply
an error by the person who made the inscription.

And since I'm writing anyway, I'll answer an earlier post of
yours, in which you wrote 'and Brian really made a confusion
reagrding the inscription that I made reference': I did not.
You didn't read my post carefully enough to see that I was
talking about the inscription on the (Vimose) chape, not the
well-known Nøvling inscription that you quoted.

Brian