Re: Finnish KASKA

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA


>
> > As far as I concerned,
> > #t?- is exhibited by PIE and PAA.
> > I know ZERO case in either
> > Etruscan or Basque.
> >
> > Arnaud
> > =======================
>
> Arnaud, you are making the same error that Bomhard does.
> Patrick
> =========
> the same error ?
> => that is to say ?
> Arnaud
> =========

***
Projecting *t? to a time frame beyond Nostratic, the parent of PIE and PAA,
is unnecessary.

***

>
> There is no need to explain the PIE and PAA developments with *t?-.
> PAtrick
> =============
> What is a *development* ?
> I don't really find this word palatable.
>
> And I think any *increment* or
> *affix* needs to be explained
> or at least described.
>
> Arnaud
> =========

***
"Development" simply means what the PIE response to Nostratic *t? was : PIE
*d; and the PAA response to Nostratic *t? : PAA *t.

***

> For Nostratic, their parent, no problem.
> PAtrick
> ========
> I don't really know
> what this *grab-all* nostratic thing means.
> I don't like jumping thru windows
> with no idea where the ground is.
>
> Arnaud
> ============

***
I think you are pulling my leg.

***


> Nostratic *t? becomes PIE *d and PAA *t; I have 24 examples of this in my
> presently evolving essay.
> PAtrick
> ======
> I will probably never accept
> Pie *d = PAA *t
> This is the acme
> of phonological
> impossibility.
>
> Arnaud
> ========

***

Who says this is a phonological impossibility _besides_ you?

***

> If you think the Proto-Language is bogus, fine. But I think, for your own
> intellectual honesty, you need to investigate why this correlation seems
> to
> be possible.
> Patrick
> =========
> I don't really understand this statement.
>
> *your* proto-thing is *according to me*
> bogus. Right. So what ?
>
> You seem to imply I am not
> *intellectual honest*
> I will just underline that
> your remark applies to you
> thru an obvious *mirror* effet.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ==========

***
If you assert that PIE *d = PAA *t is impossible, and refuse to investigate
and possibly refute the 24 examples which illustrate it, then,

yes, you would be intellectually dishonest.

As for mirrors, I have never refused to investigate anything!


Patrick