Re: [cybalist] I hope for a peaceful discussion, please

----- Original Message -----

From: Glen Gordon

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 9:39 PM

Subject: [cybalist] I hope for a peaceful discussion, please

Here's my cyberhand. I'd be the last person to want to blackball any member of the club.

P.

 

Piotr:
>   Hey, Glen,
>
>   (in case you haven't unsubbed yet)

Do you advise me to do so? I don't think being kindly invited to a list and
then having one's words and intentions made into an opposing weapon is a fun
exercise. I made a mistake - will you accept my surrender?

>   I lost my patience when you plainly ignored my remarks which were >meant
>as a bona fide correction.

And I did misunderstand. Having reviewed some things, I acknowledge my
mistakes, for instance involving "eye" where I had for some reason taken for
granted that *-t- existed based on /aks.i/ and words of Greek origin like
/optical/ where I confused this pseudo-cognate series with others where a
kt/ks. connection exists. This was painfully stupid of me, I know, but a
vaguely understandable mistake.  :(

What's beyond me and frustrating is why resources that are devoted to
concisely explaining IE grammar in detail aren't more common if so much is
known of it. I've never heard tell of any books that overtly and concisely
go through paradigms like that for "eye" in IE. It would be also handy if
the proper gender of a root could be listed too to avoid more confusion.
Instead, books only list *okW- (or a laryngeal-enriched reconstruction) and
call it "eye" without going into detail about what gender it is,
peculiarities of the paradigm, etc.

I've also absorbed more discussion on Narten and it's much appreciated. I
will have to think of how these long vowels might be explainable.

>It was easy enough to ask me to explain to you in more detail what >was
>wrong with the table rather than make me read it again as if I >couldn't
>understand what you meant the first time.

This was not even close to my intention. I meant nothing hostile by it at
all and I guess I went about invoking this much-wanted explanation in a way
that was ripe for misinterpretation. I repeated the paradigms for another
reason because there is the matter of t/s alternation that it helps
demonstrate (which would be caused by final *-T > *-s) even if they are
imaginary paradigms and I recall mention of roots with this same
alternation. I'm not claiming that I know it all. I'm just exploring.

I think you're MUCH more educated in these matters than me. I _am_ listening
but I am also sensitive to blunt dismissals without full explanation (full
enough for me to understand, that is). It would seem that the explanations
you gave weren't detailed enough to sink into my thick head, partly because
of my comprehension skills which force me to read and re-read something
before I get it straight, partly because of outdated materials and partly
because of lack of access to newer materials. I now fully understand some of
what you're saying at least.

At any rate, I'm taking a rest from this list, not desubscribing just yet
unless it would please the populus to vote me out. I'm trying to get an
entire commercial website organized on my own and dealing with that and then
the anger expressed on this list from people misunderstanding my words and
intentions is enough to drive me over the edge.

I hope none of this is viewed as more insults, Piotr, I'm not trying to
offend you at all. I never was. No more war. Pleeeez, I'm begging you to
find some compassion for my ignorance and help me rather than hurt me. If
not, I obviously would have no choice but to unsubscribe for my own sake.

- gLeN