Re[6]: [tied] Re: Syncope

At 1:44:24 on Wednesday, 31 March 2004,
enlil@... wrote:

>> I-umlaut is not analogical; it's phonologically
>> conditioned.

> I don't care about your idiotic semantic games.

Do you disagree with my statement?

> None of this matters to IE and pre-IE.

In that case what did you mean when you said 'IE ablaut was
the basis for more recent processes like this I-umlaut'?

> I'm sure other people would like to spare their mailbox
> with your quibbling about your annoying and loaded
> analyses of every word that I type.

Glen, I have news for you: you use more loaded language than
any of the other frequent posters here. And I don't post
very often at all.

> Your attack misses the point. You assume that if I admit
> a mistake that I must be always wrong

No, I don't.

> yet if I am, you have not formulated a coherent arguement.
> Jens has done all the work and you only sit back until you
> want to insult somebody after a bad day at the sausage
> factory.

I am not yet competent to deal with the main argument, so I
am content merely to follow it. I do, however, have some
respect for the facts, even when they are incidental. And
any datum that is so incidental as not to matter probably
wasn't relevant in the first place.

> Come on. Calm down [...]

Good advice.

Brian