> > Jens:
> > >You don't know how frequent the *z...
> >
> > Ach. How many times are you going to wave everything away with
> > "We don't know this and we don't know that -
>
>As many times as it takes.
You're proving nothing. We both agree that we don't "know" anything.
That has no relevance to theories which serve to help us fill in the blanks
and to at least approximate the truth. We'll never "know" whether protons
really have +1 charge or even if they exist at all... but how does that
disprove
quantum mechanics?? It doesn't. Your point is boring and futile to this
debate.
>And even if I am totally wrong, how can I know that your idea is correct?
What is your problem?? Can't you distinguish absolutes from probabilities??
Theories can't be judged as "true" and "false" because these are absolutes
requiring absolute knowledge which you keep unnecessarily reminding me
we do not have. They are judged by relative probabilities that range
BETWEEN "true" (100% probability) and "false" (0% probability). Einstein
knew about relativity which is why his theories worked.
Theories can only APPROXIMATE truth but without them we'd be dumb
as a turnip. If you're trying to find absolute truth, you're in the wrong
field.
>Is your theory good because I have suggested something which you
>consider even worse?
Yes, and I consider it worse because it is less likely. This is how we solve
problems of a theoretical, non-absolute nature. I've already stated above
why your theory is undesirable; It is based on a slew of unsubstantiated
assumptions of your own psychotic design. You have to first JUSTIFY that
*t- becomes *s- with other examples. JUSTIFY that the loss of *-s is
reasonable change and preferably again with other examples.
If you can't JUSTIFY anything you're stating, your theory is inferior to the
one I propose because my view IS based firmly on _substantiated_ theory.
It is true (based on the agreement of many IEists) that *so is not
case-declined. It is true (based on the agreement of many IEists) that *so
is animate _only_. So the only thing I have to theorize is that an animate,
undeclined *so was attached to the paradigm of an already declined *to-.
If you don't get it at this point, you're just being argumentative.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus