--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> Frankly, I don't know why we've wasted so much time on this.
> You should be agreeing rather than twisting my chronology all
> around to blasphemize what I'm saying.
I know why we're doing this. It's because some clown who later
called me a jackass refused to consider Hittite counterevidence of a
phonologically ambiguous nature. I can hardly think of anything that
is less ambiguous than the pair ma:n : mahhan vs. Latin quom : quam,
tum : tam. *Anybody* making claims about what Anatolian has had or
hasn't had is making statements about ambiguous material. I revolted
against that, and I'll do it again any day. It is totally unfair.
Jens