Re: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

----- Original Message -----

From: elmeras2000

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:53 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@......> wrote:

>   Old Indian Sráyati, 'leans', suggests durative for the *-y to
me. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. All forms of 'lean' have the /y/, be they durative
or punctual (or uncommitted). The stem s'ray-a- is a typical example
of the creation of a secondary present stem on the basis of the
subjunctive of the aorist, which is then in this case a root aorist,
explicable only from an original punctual meaning of the root *k^ley-
 as something 'take up a leaning posture, take to slant'. The old
present stem had a nasal infix, as Gk. klí(:)no:, Lat. cli:no:, OHG
hline:n show. 

***

Patrick writes:

I have known of the function of *-y to differentiate, and I am beginning to suspect that what I have been characterizing as 'durative', is, on a deeper level merely differentiation. It may be that, in *k^ley- is an example of differentiation semantically rather than aspectually.

 

I agree that any root, whether original or lexicalized, that is capable of a root aorist should be preferentially considered punctual.

 

I do not understand the significance of the subjunctive in your explanation. Could you explain further?

 

It was from verbs like *k^ley- that I assigned an ingressive force to *-n.

 

It is interesting to me that you characterize *-n as an infix rather than a suffix. I consider it a suffix, and that where it occurs within root boundaries, a result of metathesis.

***

 

>   *k^el- is interesting, is it not? It looks like it has no
attested root present or root aorist, and instead is building its
inflection with -*to, which I know as a future/prospective formant.

From what material do you "know" that? What "inflection" are you
talking about? The dental extension seen in PGmc. *haltha-/*halda-
 'slanting'? How do you know that is based on the inflection of a
verb?  And if so, why is the *-to- not just the participle morpheme?
There is no -t- in Lith s^alìs 'side'. I can't make anything
interesting of a combination between *k^el- and *k^ley-. The fact
just seems to be that the IE roots are old words that have come to
have that form before they were expanded by the suffixal and
inflectional material of later stages. In principle it might be
possible to acquire some impression of the functional services
rendered by the root extensions (of such they are - the short forms
could also have lost the material not appearing in them), but if the
two variants means exactly the same, there is nothing to go on.
19 out of 130  76 out of 600
 

***

Patrick writes:

 

I attribute future/prospective meaning to *-to from Sumerian non-finite forms in *-ed (really **-et), Egyptian sDm.t=f forms and sDm.tj=fj forms, and infinitives in *-t.

 

The formant involved with *k^el- is *to, the participial morpheme.

 

I pick up more 'incline (towards)' with *k^el- and more 'lean' ('incline on') with *k^ley-.

 

I think the PIE *-to participle is clearly future-prospective.

 

Meine Mannschaft ringt dennoch unverdrossen weiter nach dem Tor.

***

 

>   Barring a final *-H or *-y, I assume that any *CVC root in PIE
is aorist (though there will probably be the apparent exception).

There are many exceptions. In fact, the statement is nowhere near
correct: *h1es- 'be', *h1ey- 'go', *bheH2- 'speak; shine', *ses-
 'sleep', *sep- 'attend to', *yeH2- 'go', *wek^- 'wish', *tekW-
 'run', *k^ey- 'lie' and no doubt others do form well-established
root presents. I count in the index of LIV 130 secured or suggested
root presents, 19 of which are from roots of the minimal structure
CVC.

 

For root aorists, I count 600, 76 being from minimal roots.
Thus, most roots just are punctual, and so of course there are also
more punctual roots made from any given structure that one might be
interested in (for whatever reason). But actually the percentage of
CVC roots is lower among the aorists than among the presents, viz.
12.6 versus 14.6. Now that does not make me go crazy and claim the
opposite, for there is no reason to assume that this has any reason
associated with the root structures at all. Why would there be an
absolutely equal distribution at all? Most other things are not
equally big, why would these two groups be? 

***

Patrick writes:

 

First off, could you tell me what LIV is? It looks like a very valuable reference work.

 

As we both know, each root deserves its own scrutiny so my remarks should be interpreted cum grano salis.

 

Let us start first with your root aorists. Of 600, you report 76 *CVC's. Assuming you and I would both agree on exclusions, let us consider the count of 130 root presents, of which you report 19 have CVC.

 

If we ignore the *CVC requirement for a moment, a *CVC is 461% more likely to be a root aorist than a root present. I believe, prima facie, that proves my contention; namely, that a *CVC root without any excluded markings, will be punctual.

 

If we take the strictly *CVC counts, 19 vs. 76, we get 400%; rather consistent with the percentage (461%) indicated by all forms.

 

However, I feel that the percentages are even higher. I am (relatively) sure you are employing your functional definition of a root rather my analytical one. With a "root" like *stre(n)g-, I believe you would have counted it in the non-*CVC protion of the count whereas I probably would have analyzed it as *s-mobile + euphonic -*- + reg^-, which would have given an additional number.

 

I am now prepared to admit, on the basis of what you have demonstrated, that *-y as a final element of *CVy is as likely to be simply semantic differentiation as to be conveying durative; the same for, at least, some *CVCy-.

 

If we had synchronic data, it might be possible to conclusively prove, yea or nay, whether *-H, etc. had any effect on the aspectual orientation of the verb in "roots" as simple as *CVC. We do not so, although we can discuss interesting possibilities, probably no one will be convinced.

 

I will, however, discuss a couple of them briefly.

 

In the case of *Hey-, 'go', and *k^ey-, 'lie', I am going to plead that the original differentiation here is durative vs. punctual: 'set off' against 'go'; 'lie down' vs. 'lie'. Since *CV roots became impermissible in PIE, the _now_  punctual/durative roots were re-formed into new duratives with other elements: in the case of *Hey- (now punctual), with *-to (cf. Old Irish ethaid, 'goes'), corresponding to Sumerian e3, punctual; ed, durative; 'go'; Egyptian jj vs. j(j).t, 'go'; highly unusual. I have no similar "new" durative to propose for *k^ey- at this time.

 

In the cases of *bhaH-, shine', and *yaH-, 'go', I believe we are dealing with statives: 'shiny, prominent' and 'removed, gone'. You will have to tell me if you would accept the idea that PIE could inflect a stative root as a present rather than insist on perfect inflection.

 

With *tekW-, 'run', I suspect we may have a Sumerian cognate: tuh2, 'help'; If this represents pre-Nostratic *tox-, it means 'approach a large number of times'; I suppose *-xa is a formant for large indefinite animate plurals. This might produce a durative. http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ProtoLanguage-Monosyllables.htm

   

With *hes- 'be', we have a word which has no obvious verbal cognates in Egyptian or Sumerian. The copula is both languages is built on *ma:-, 'be active at'. We do have an affirmative js in Egyptian. Might this be a particle that has been made into a verb, only in PIE? In which case, no prediction as to durative or punctual could realistically be made. 

 

I have nothing to suggest for *sep- 'attend to' or *wek^- 'wish'.

 

I have no information on *ses-, 'sleep'; is this possibly a typo?

 

When someone goes to the effort that you obviously have (I have no reference book that would enable me to do it) to compile such figures, you deserve sincere thanks; when you, in addition, candidly report your findings, which do not strengthen your position, you deserve admiration.

*** 

 

>   I think the more productive approach is for me to put this forth
as a hypothesis to be tested by your selecting a *CVC root (not
ending in *-H or *-y that you believe is demonstrably _not_ aorist.
>
>   What do you think?

I think it's a waste of time, but I just did that. You may respond
to it if you like.

***

Patrick writes:

 

For whatever it is not worth, I have.

***

 

>   I  have temporarily misplaced my Whitney. What is the aorist
recorded for *k^lei-, if you do not mind telling me?

3sg ás'ret, 3pl ás'riyan.

***

Patrick writes:

 

Obviously, the *-y is there.

***

 

>   If rules operated absolutely faultlessly, there would be no need
for professors to explain the exceptions.
>
>   While I do claim that *k^ley- is inherently durative, I do not
rule out the possibility that it was lexicalized, and so could form
a root aorist.
>   ***

Why do you keep on using the pseudo-technical word "lexicalized"
every time a form turns out to be an aorist against out predictions?
Lexicalizations are typically retentions of an older state of
affairs, so in such cases your statements about the original
situation should work even better.

***

Patrick writes:

 

Perhaps you could suggest a better word to express my meaning.

 

Obviously, I mean root that has been inflected, and then becomes a new word including the former inflection, now no longer felt as such.

***
>
>   >
>   >   >   When PIE started forming roots in *CVC, any *CVC that
>   reflected
>   >   an earlier stem extension of a *CV root, would have been
>   >   lexicalized, and redefined as an aorist/injunctive.
>   >
>   >   And what is *that* statement based on?
>   >
>   >   ***
>   >   Patrick writes:
>   >
>   >   The extraordinary lengths to which IE seems constrained to
form
>   presents.
>
>   I do not even understand the English of that sentence, What do
you
>   mean?
>
>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   There is no PIE tense that has so many different tense forming
devices as the present.
>   ***

There are basically four: (1) Unmarked, i.e. root present, made
directly from roots whose semantics was durative already. (2)
Reduplicated, made from aoristic roots expressing actions which if
prolonged would involve repetition (*dhi-dhéH1-/*dhé-dH1- "be
putting several things"). (3) Nasal presents, which were originally
causatives, originally used in the middle voice to express a
roundabout action *k^l-n-u-tór 'is being occasioned to listen,
listens', OIr. ro-cluinethar). (4) ye/o-presents, apparently adding
a durative note to the bare meaning expressed by the root-aorist:
*gWm-yé-ti 'is coming' : aor. *e gWém-t 'came'. The inchoative
sk^e/o-presents which go with s-aorist apparently reflect the simple
addition of the *-s- and *-ye/o- the result of which seems to be
precisely *-sk^e/o-. The thematic present type *bhér-e-ti is in
origin only the subjunctive of the root aorist; the zero-grade
thematic of Skt. tudáti is a secondary thematicization of an
athematic structure, either a root present or a root aorist (often
taken to be always from a root aorist, but that seems to be based on
a hasty impression of the simple fact that most roots are aoristic).
Other types are combinations or special changes that took place with
special root structures.

***

Patrick writes:

 

Thank you for the helpful summary.

 

I notice you left out a few more mentioned by Beekes - perhaps you disagree with their inclusion as present-forming elements: *-s- in *k^leu-s-; *-dh- in *pleH-dh-; *-k- in *dheH-k-?

 

By the way, I think there was basically one causative in PIE: *y, but interestingly from *¿ rather than *?.

 

I believe the nasal presents are old ingressives: 'start to hear' = 'listen'.

 

I am also curious as to why you would believe that present indicate forms derive from aorist subjunctive forms. That seems very counter-intuitive.

***

 

 

<snip>

>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   I am sorry to have to doubt that. *pleH-, 'fill', forms a root
aorist ápra:t to be sure but the present tense is reduplicated *pel-
(píparti) not reduplicated *pleH-.
>
>   I see nothing inherently aorist in 'pour'.
>   ***

There is if it means to fill water into something which is empty
before you begin. The function of the aorist is to change the
situation, while the present aspect elaborates the situation already
given. You can't fill a pot without changing the situation - unless
you have already filled some of it, in which case the present stem
applies when you go on.

***

Patrick writes:

 

Do you deny there is a semantic difference between 'pour' (durative) and 'fill' (punctual)?

 

The verb means both, does it not?

***

>
>   >
>   >   And theoretically, also. I believe that nouns preceded verbs
as
>   a category in all these languages. And in all these languages,
>   singular is unmarked, which ties into a punctual (aorist) verb
>   simple form.
>   >   ***
>
>   I do not see the relevance of that statement. What do you mean?
>
>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   I mean, at an early date, there were _no_ verbs per se/
>   ***

I actually agree that the verbs we know are analyzable in terms of
original nouns, and their syntax then as that of nominal sentences.
That, however, does not exclude the earlier existence of real verbs
that have been lost when the nouns took over. A case of this is sen
in Modern Indic where the verb has been practically lost and
replaced by old nominal circumlocutions; that is no valid reason to
deny the existence of finite verbs in Sanskrit. As the nominal
phrases are growing into new verbs in Modern Indic, someone might
say that verbs are secondary in comparison with nouns; he would be
wrong.
 

***

Patrick writes:

 

Eureka! I am so glad we can agree on that. It is such an important part of understanding the whole process.

***

 

<snip>

 

>   Only in the case
>   of a serious demonstration of that kind can I seriously consider
>   ascribing morphematic status to some of the material appearing
in
>   the longer root form. I have not seen any such demonstration. I
have
>   read and listened to hundreds of attempts at proving such
analyses,
>   but it has been just too pitifully easy to dismantle them.
>
>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   In my opinion, that is what dyáti does.
>   ***

Again, I don't understand you: *What* does dyáti do which is
important here? Does dyáti show *absence* of some of the material of
*deH1y- under conditions where the absent material would have been
retained if it had been present in the first place? You may note
that the single attestation of the stem in the Rigveda, as I have
repeatedly pointed out, shows *presence* of all of its material, for
[adias] can only reflect *e-dH1i-e-s. A form without the laryngeal,
i.e. ***e-dy-e-s could not vocalize the /y/. 

***

Patrick writes:

 

I love herring, too, only not the red kind.

 

I continue to believe that dyáti can _only_ be explained as a retention of *dy- not *dHy-.

***

 

 

<snip>

>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   Certainly. The original impulse for *CVH (*CV?) was to form a
stative of a given *CV root.

I don't understand that either.
 
>   At the PIE stage, this stative nuance was only selectively felt
so that *CVH was generally regarded as a punctual verb just as any
other *CVC.

***

Patrick writes:

 

Root (CV or CVC) + *H (*?) yields a stative.

***

So they marked the stative nuance, but were not really understood?
How come *you* understand it so much better? What source of
information gave you the insight that enabled you to make this funny
assessment?

***

Patrick writes:

 

The clearest indication is Egyptian nfr, 'beautiful', nfr.j, 'be beauriful'. And, of course, the PIE recognized formant -H1, "express a situation". It shows up in Sumerian be a few variants of monosyllabic words in -a.

***

 

 

 

>   *CVbh- constitutes *CV + *bh, a compound; hence a punctual verb
root or root noun. *-bh forms no aspectual extension of a verbal
root - ever.
>
>   *CVr-, *CVn-, *CVl- were also lexicalized when, in the majority
of cases, they derived from *CV stem modifications like *-H and *-y:
*-r, factitive, *-n and *-l, inanimate and animate ingressive. That
is not to say that these three could not also occur as genuine
compounds as in PIE *del-, 'split', pre-Nostratic *da-l-, 'hand-move
back and forth = cut'; Sumerian dal; Egyptian dn.

You're not getting through to me. You are obviously talking about
some analysis consisting in dissection of the IE roots that I have
never heard of, much less seen the need of myself. I hesitate to ask
you to be more specific, but I'm afraid there's no other way. So
what *do* you mean?

 

***

Patrick writes:

 

I will be, hopefully, mercifully brief.

 

Pre-Nostratic *na means 'one'. It is a singularizer for nouns, and indicates an initial verbal action (ingressive).

 

Pre-Nostratic *re means 'come down on, apply'; *der-, 'split' (factitive, 'make a part in'), is related to *daH-, 'part' (stative); cf. Sumerian dar, 'split; Egyptian d3.j, 'subdue'.

***
 
<snip>

 

>   Patrick writes:
>
>   The sheer length of the forms.
>   ***

I don't see inflection being heaped upon inflection to any
noteworthy degree. Nor do I see the relevance even it were true. I
do not think Slavic wordforms are generally longer than the
wordforms of Sanskrit, Greek, Gaulish or Runic Germanic.

***

Patrick writes:

 

My guess is that this is measureable. I would be willing to bet $100 that any paragraph in German would take 115% minimum longer time to say in Russian.

*** 

 

 

<snip>
 
>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   For our purposes, that really makes no difference to derive it
from *da:-, 'liquid, flow'. It just becomes a reason why this entry
in Pokorny should be revised to *daH-, *daHy-.

Of course it makes a difference! If the root is *deyH1- and the
participle is *diH1-nó-, then the word is not an example of what you
are talking about. Then there never was a sequence /Hy/ in this word.

***

Patrick writes:

 

Pokorny list *da:i- and *de:i-, i.e. *daHy- and *deHy-; of course, you are free to disagree.

***

  
>   I guess you have anticipated my answer. If dayate
means 'zerfallen', I would attribute it to a *day-, connected with
*daH-; and both of these are connected to 'teilen' in this way.

That's what I wrongly read into Mayrhofer's words myself before I
looked more closely. It cannot stand.

>   The absolute basal meaning of *da is 'side'. In *daH-, 'liquid',
we have the inanimate 'leak, liquidate';'produce something at the
side'; with 'divide', we have 'make something to be at the side'.
>
>   It just struck me that all this suggests *da:nu- is 'glacial
melt' since other good words for 'river' exist.

And if yet another one is found, which one is then 'glacial melt'?
*da:nu- or the new word?

***

Patrick writes:

 

That would, of course, depend on the basal idea of the word.

***

<snip>

>   >   But respectfully, I think you have forgotten the purpose for
>   which di:ná was introduced into the discussion.
>   >
>   >   If di:- represents the zero-grade of *deHy-, and I grant
that it
>   does, and that is why _I_ introduced it, why do we _not_ find it
>   reflected in dyánti, where we expect zero-grade + -ánti? Would
not a
>   zero-grade di:- + ánti produce **di(y)ánti?
>   >   ***
>
>   It might, but doesn't have to, for the rule governing it makes
>   allowances. In this case it actually does: the single Rigvedic
>   attestation <adyas> is metrically [adi(y)as], just as you want
it to
>   be. That can certainly not be construed to show that your
>   expectations are *not* met.
>   
>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   Excuse me, but a rule that "makes allowances" is really not much
of a "rule".
>   ***

 

Sievers' law - or lawlessness if you prefer - states that semivowels
following long sequences (V:C or VCC) can be vocalized, while they
cannot be vocalized after short sequences (VC). This poses
restrictions on the linguistic variation: dative plurals in -ebhyas
and -a:bhyas appear with the /y/ optionally vocalized or
consonantal, as the poet needed it for his metre; dative plurals in -
ibhyas, -ubhyas of i- and u-stems never vocalize the /y/. There is
no point in denying the existence of such rules - or of anything
that can be established empirically.
 

***

Patrick writes:

 

I have no problem with that rule: sometimes *y, sometimes *I; rules determining which.

 

Of course, Sievers has nohing to do with our problem.

***

 

<snip>

 

> But I cannot accept that
they
>   are
>   >   being brushed aside to make way for alternatives that are
based
>   on
>   >   no serious evidence at all.
>   >
>   >   ***
>   >   Patrick writes:
>   >
>   >   On your first point, di:ná- points to a zero-grade form of
>   *da/eHy- so I have demonstrated that.
>
>   If you mean that you have demonstrated that di:ná- shows *-&y-
with
>   vocalized laryngeal (schwa) followed by /y/ with which the schwa
>   forms a diphthong, that just is not correct. Where laryngeals
appear
>   in the environment CHyV, i.e. between a consonant and a
>   consonantal /y/, the /y/ is vocalized and the laryngeal is kept
>   consonantal.
>
>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   I will pass on this. I really do not understand it.
>   ***

That's too bad, for you were the one making a point based on it, and
now when it is spelled put to you, you do not understand it. Do you
want *me* to defend your mistakes for you? The question boils down
to this: Where do you find [&y] as you claim you have? Where is its
existence proved?

***

Patrick writes:

 

In di:ná-, as I have repeatedly mentioned. You assume because you have said it, that *deyH- exists. You have not proved it at all. And I resent your coming back to explanations that involve it as if I had accepted it, too. I do not accept it! I accept only *deHy-, to which Sieves has nothing to say.

 

Many days ago, you explained the form under consideration, as a sequence of *-6y-; that is possible only as a zero-grade of *-Hy- not the *-yH- you are now seeking to introduce to remedy the weak, ad hoc explanation that *-6y- from *-Hy- always resolves to *y. Whose law is that? Not Sievers because with Sievers, _nothing_ is lost!!! only differently realized.

 

Forgive me, but I am beginning to wonder if you really remember what this was all about in the first place???

***

<snip> 

>   That depends on what present type it is. This is a class VI
present,
>   the type tudáti, tudánti. That is generally explained as a
>   thematicization of an old root aorist.
>
>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   Are you claiming that is what dyáti is?
>   ***
Yes.

***

Patrick writes:

 

Well, claim away. I claim it is a retention of a *dey- that has gone out of use.

***

   
>   >   I would be very interested to know why that is not the case
in
>   the third person singular if you have a good idea.
>   >
>   >   We have the form Old Indian gá:yati, 'sings', from *geHy-.        (note: corrected a to a: for clarity only)
This
>   seems to me to be the natural response of *CVHy- to a thematic
third
>   person singular. Why is it different?
>
>   'Sing' forms the present stem gá:ya- from *géHy-e-. The Sanskrit
>   root vowel is long.
>   
>   >   Now I have _repeatedly_ asked you why we see an apparent
zero-
>   grade in the third person singular form and you seem to be
avoiding
>   an answer. Why is that?
>
>   Because it is a class VI present stem.
>
>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   I was aware of tudáti but also what Beekes writes: "There are
also present tense forms with zero grade in the root, but it is not
certain whether these go back to PIE."
>
>   So, it seems, we are back where we started.
>
>   I am claiming dyáti, Class VI now, which calls for a zero-grade
of the root, should be *diyáti if derived from *deHy- (*de6y-) based
on the zero-grade di:ná, from whatever it might come, and you
introduce the (in my opinion) ad hoc rule that *-6y resolves always
to *-y.

No. I observe that wherever one may expect schwa + /y/ to appear,
what we really find is the reflex of [Hi]. That is also what we have
in [diyáti] which is *dH1i-é-ti with a subphonemic glide between the
[i] and the following vowel. The [i] itself is (optionally) syllabic
because of the preceding cluster (and only optionally so because
that is the way Sievers' rule works).

But if *your* stand is that dyáti/diáti cannot be of PIE age, you
should not use it for reconstructions that go even further back in
time.

***

Patrick writes:

 

You are getting very Macchiavellian in your argumentation, Jens.

 

What Beekes questioned was not *CVy- verbs but simply zero-grade presents.

 

I have no obligation to believe that *dey-, if it existed, would not, at one time or another, have formed a regular present: **dá:yati, parallel to gá:yati.

 

>   I have confess to being Austrian German which inclines (*k^lei-)
me to dislike anything ad hoc viscerally. Tut mir herzlich leid.
>   ***

I have not noticed any dislike for ad hoc solutions in your own
suggestions. Are you being objective at all?

***

Patrick writes:

 

I am trying as hard as I can.

***

 

 

<snip>

>   Then it's time to produce some. You may talk here.
>
>
>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   "You may talk here." Jens, you do have a sense of humor!
>
>   Can you give me any indication of what might constitute 'proof'
for any point I have made or attempted to make here?
>
>   Seriously.

I have plenty of proof against it, so frankly no. Proof positive
would be some word which could only be based on a zero-grade
sequence and then has it surfacing as Latin -ae- or Greek -ei-/-ai-/-
oi- before a consonant, or as Latin -a- or Greek -e-/-a-/-o- before
a vowel (with loss of *-y- between the two vowels). Or the same from
any other IE branch. I know of no such examples. From *da:y-
 'teilen' Pokorny gives *d&i-lo- as the immediate preform of OCS
de^lU 'Teil' and Gothic dails. Others posit *daHi-lo-, but that
ought to have developed into *dayH-lo- which would have given an
acute intonation in Slavic which is not found (SbCr. dì`jeo shows
circumflex). Note that Germanic d- is not expected with IE *d-, and
note also Lith. dalìs 'part' without the i-part. There may be
loanword relations involved in this, and the l-part may have formed
an athematic stem, in that case however of a type not immediately
transparent. This is not transparent enough to allow a serious
reconstruction for PIE, much less for states older than that.

Jens

***

Patrick writes:

 

As for Germanic *d, IE *dh does yield Germanic *d; this suggest to me that *deHy- (my version, not your *deyH-) might have become *dHey- yielding German *dai-.

 

Perhaps a switch to a new root might bring some agreement?

 

 

Patrick

***



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/