I'll just skip Miguel's theoretical rantings and go straight
to the counter-IE stupidity:
>I fail to see what point you're trying to make. I have no opinion on the
>exact analysis of *h1eg^-, except that it is obvioulsy not a verb.
That's funny. Your article shows clearly that you DO have an
opinion - a misinformed one at that. As I say, the most serious
explanation of *eg^o: is that it is a verb formation meaning
"I am here" - there is nothing terribly contraversial about
this view. Since you have "no opinion" now, my view stands
victorious over the shrapnel of your fragmented theory.
>I'm not absolutely sure if there were any phonotactic
>rules in PIE against *ts or in favour of *k(^)s,
I doubt it since *-ks^- shows up in Kartvelian too.
>In PIE, *yus would have been reduced to *ys-m� (*ism�),
Miguel, this is inane. *yus is _already_ reduced to zero-grade. The
full form would have been **yeus. There is no acceptable IE process
that reduces *yus to *is and there is no acceptable IE process that
reduces *swe to *su (unless _perhaps_ unaccented but even then a
little strange), let alone *su- to *u-! Like I say, your views
are clearly twisted and misinformed. Why not throw away these
unworkable theories for something better?
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com