Re: [tied] Re: PIE *kwokt

----- Original Message -----
From: <m_iacomi@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:45 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE *kwokt
> > The 'not fallowed' should read 'followed'! Then Statement 2
> > becomes compatible with Statement 1
>
> Why not otherwise, since anyways the rule is not correctly
> stated? :-) The problem is not that Alex can't focus on what
> he writes (which makes our day with hilarious cases as 1 & 2)
> but merely that despite of repeatedly having been pointed out
> the rules, he is not able to reproduce them. Replacing /a/
> with (/e/ & /i/) it's neither a typo nor the result of some
> incidental lack of concentration.
>

For the sake of clarity:

1) PIE *gW > b and PIE *kW > p when _not_ followed by /e/ or /i/
2) PIE *gW > g and PIE *kW > k when followed by /e/ an /i/

It seems you try to use a camouflage for your aversion against this idea
under the verbal flowers which you generously give to me. Further it
seems that for you, if someone do not accept an idea, then this has just
one explanation. This one is unable to understand them. Honestly, I
prefer Glen's style here, but this is a matter of taste:-)