--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> I'm also dismayed by the rarity of prefixes and it seems apparent
> that IE was strongly a suffixal language overall. This is why
> I find myself rejecting Jens hypothesis of a consonantal *O (?)
> prefix, gone methatesized infix (as if this is a phenomenon
> elsewhere outside of simply finding a lame solution to the
> origins of nominal o-grading). It is very unnecessary and,
> well, I'll say it if no one else will, contrived. I can't help
> it. It's contrived with a capital cee.
Well, if that is the reason for rejecting it, I feel greatly
flattered. I suppose your evaluation of my solution as "contrived"
tells me that I have succeeded in doing what I wanted to do:
formulate a solution that works, irrespective of preconceived ideas.
I have meant this as the solution told us by the algebraic details
of the language itself. Now, I understand that you are some who know
better - and why would you be bothered by the testimony of the
language? The language has already told us so often that it loves
suffixes and cannot stand prefixes or infixes, so if it suddenly has
a change of heart and gets to advocating the presence of an infix,
it just has no credibility and its story will not stand up in court.
I am sure this sounds completely logical to some. I do not buy it:
There may be a reason for the fact that the alternation involving
the o-forms here considered has not been explained. It can be simply
that the obvious (i.e., algebraic) solution is being constantly
disqualified by overriding principles. Now, principles should be
formulated a posteriori, so let's see what the language has to say,
right? No, you apparently say, we dont' care what the language says,
it has a screw loose. Well, I say, so let's analyze it as a language
that has a screw loose. That will bring us past the stalemate.
Jens