From: tgpedersen
Message: 38651
Date: 2005-06-15
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>wrote:
> >verb-
> > Basically he suggests that the hi-conjugation was much more
> > widespread, and that is the point of the book. He does it on a
> by-No sale to this gentleman. And Patrick says it's phantasy. Obviously
> > verb (or verb group by verb group) basis, so it's a question of
> being
> > convinced in each case. Part of the reason I like his idea is that
> if
> > the mi-conjugation arose as a dependent "absolute ablative"-type
> > clause, I need another conjugation for the finite verb to be in
> > existence at that time.
>
> Then we can kill two birds with one stone by saying no. Nice bargain.
>