[tied] Re: PIE *kwokt

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" wrote:

>> 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/

Then you should clearly point out that "some scholars" which
support these "rules of derivation" (ref: "Some scholars belive
that [...]" - message 19190 of cybalist) is just another way
to say `Vinereanu` (whose "knowledge" of IE issues was already
discussed on this list). Nobody else claimed this kind of rules.

> 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:-)

If there is a thing I dislike, it's your continuous drift from
accepted linguistical facts and models to unsubstantiated ideas
which you present as if they would have been well-established
by science.

Marius Iacomi