Re: Velar vs Uvular (was: Verdict on Mann)

----- Original Message -----
From: "stlatos" <stlatos@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Velar vs Uvular (was: Verdict on Mann)


>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> wrote:
>
>> Let's not forget that the original issue what velars's influence on *e/a
>> I'm afraid you have not started addressing the issue.
>> A.
>>
>> PS
>> You have been requested to avoid idiosyncratic gibber.
>

StWLatoSY WxroHtYe :
> You are intolerably argumentative. Your incompetence in linguistics
> and constant misunderstandings of every aspect of my replies would
> make further communication pointless even if I were willing to accept
> your unjustified hostility.
>
==========
M. StWLatoSY

You have been requested to avoid your recourse to an idiosyncratic graphic
system that complies with no other standard on Earth.
I'm just trying to understand what your mails mean
but this attempt is hindered by the abstruse formatting in which they are
written.
Do you plan to establish a new graphic standard for PIE on the basis of your
own personal abstruse gibber ?
What is intolerable is your idiosyncratic system.
I'm not hostile, I'm trying to understand what you have to say.
If you cannot tolerate requests at clarification,
I'm afraid you have nothing to do here.
You are not the Oracle of Delphes,
so you are supposed to avoid enigmas.

I believe in well described data and good reasoning.
So far, you have proved very little of the sort.
This is enough to deny you any capacity of judging my own level of
competence.
And I suppose this ad hominem attack is not welcome by Cybalist rules.

Try to write understandable messages in the first place,
then we 'll discuss the rest.
I remind you that Camel is a very unlikely PIE word.

Best.

A.