Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 01:10:37 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>Read my text, you're not replying to the point. You are actually making it
>worse: How could such a very young dual inflection take such a silly turn?
>Why was a newly-formed number category inflected with endings that are so
>different from those of the other numbers? Why are the dual forms the
>*least* transparent set we have? Surely that is unexpected if they are the
>youngest set, and *very* young at that.

Glen always does that. If something is not transparent, and cannot be
explained by the simple-minded (Occam-castrated) rules for Early Late
Middle whatever Indo-European he's set up, then it is dismissed as a
"recent innovation".

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...