Miguel:
>>Anyone can play phonetic games and come up with convenient
>>"dissimilatory processes" to get rid of the *t that is "supposed" to be
>>there because of a groundless, preconceived notion. "Supposed" by
>>whom? Not by me.
>
>False. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pieml/message/734
No, sorry, Miguel. I won't allow you make such an unjust comparison.
There's a Grand Canyon of a gap between expecting a plural *-s at
the end of *-te based on the 1pp *-me-s versus ASSUMING based on
NOTHING that *tu and *yus must be based on the same root.
The only thing you base your conclusion on is yet another ASSUMPTION
that *me and *wei must be related too. Yet what is THAT based on??
Yet another ASSUMPTION that *m and *w alternated willy-nilly because
of actual instances of the *-ment-/*-went- alternation. Yet the rules
behind this involve *-ment- following *u. So you ASSUME further
that there must have been a hidden *w in every reconstruction of
Pre-IE you make, no matter how absurd.
The difference in methodology is clear. The comparison made between
*-mes and *-te, which must certainly relate to the pronouns *me and
*twe, is a sensible and transparent one made by me and many others.
The comparison between *tu and *yus is simply not, but your fertile
imagination can't accept this cruel fact and you continue on with this
fantasy unabated.
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca