Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

>> Clearly this was mentioned to accomplish something that is
>> outside the bounds of logic but is well within the domain of
>> psychology. That purpose was to sabotage a path of reasoning
>> that would lead us to the conclusion that your ideas are not
>> as correct as you purport them to be.

Jens:

> How can *that* be clear? The information was supplied on demand:
> My mess. 31862, already a reply to your direct question, informs about
> the nominatives *-o:y in alternation with *-o:(:), comparing *-o:r
> in alternation with *-o:(:). After an interlude of thanking me which
> you no doubt regret, you come back in Mess. 31933, saying: "Wait a
> minute. You're saying *-o:r alternates with *-o:? How do you mean?
> Why would the *r disappear?" The rest has been an attempt to reply
> to that in an equally civil manner, something I have lived to regret.

I thank you for the added information of this sandhi phenomenon
without any regrets now or in the future. Information is a wonderful
gift. However it appears that this phenomenon is completely irrelevant
to the topic of Nominative Loss. The fact that you brought it up
here cannot be for logical purposes if you yourself can't state
without rhetoric why you mentioned it and how it relates to Nominative
Loss.

Do you also blame the others too for being equally confused by your
statements, provoking them to question you as well? So, again, if
you may only respond: What does this have anything to do with
Nominative Loss?

> Did I now, Siegmund?

Until you answer the above question, it appears that you did.

>>> How would Lith. dukte:~ and Skt. duhitá: proceed from a form in
>>> *-té:r ?
>>
>> Common, everyday erosion.
>
> And where else does such erosion apply in these languages?

Where does the erosion of the nominative in *-us apply in Romance
languages?


= gLeN