--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> 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?
Others had no part in provoking this side-issue.
It does have a certain amount of relevance, at least I felt obliged
to finish the thread once it was brought up. The matter was about
how much is lost in the nominative singular, that would seem to be
what is meant by the title "Nominative Loss" which was not coined by
me. And if we discuss the circumstance under which earlier *-Vr-z
(or some such thing, the identity of the sibilant being very much at
issue) ends up as *-é:r/*-o:r, it is certainly not off topic to
quote the forms correctly. And nobody will be successful in
demanding that I quote the forms to be discussed in any other shape
than I believe they had.
>
> > Did I now, Siegmund?
>
> Until you answer the above question, it appears that you did.
This is unacceptable. The discussant is blaming me for derailing the
line of discussion due to ulterior motives even after being reminded
and having acknowledged that he had himself elicited the information
he calls irrelevant. Are there no standards of ethics on this list?
> >>> 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?
That's not erosion, that's replacement by the accusative. Sorry, I
brought in a matter without bearing on the issue. Back to the point:
We need support for the changes advocated for the particular
language concerned. That may be asking a lot, but the theory is
shamelessly boasting an awful lot, so it calls for very critical
scrutiny.
Jens