Re: [tied] -osyo 4 (was: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?)

My quote:

>> But I thought *gWo:us is in reality *gWohWus (*gWohW- being "graze").
>> Any "overlength" would be from a laryngeal. [...]
>>
>> Blech, well, that's enough of the Linguistic NewSpeak for today.

Jens in return:

> Anybody who finds this attempt at a travesty amusing may be reminded
> that none of the author's opinions are misrepresented in it. And that
> *is* a joke.

Not sure what or who you're laughing at. Is it the fact that I
stated *gWohWus instead of *gWo:us or my lighthearted romp through
Orwellian Linguistics? Were you laughing at _me_ for stating the
above or to Piotr who was the first to mention *gWohWus a few years
ago in this post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/10836

Really not sure what's going on with you, Jens, but you owe an
explanation for the typically cryptic but apparently hateful comment
above.


= gLeN