Mate goes astray yet again:
> Possible, but only if one sticks to your theory.
?? This is not "my" theory, Mate, since I had adopted
this idea from Piotr (which he no doubt adopted from
someone else through his studies). I think you're
stuck on personal issues against me and are not
thinking clearly about this viewpoint, devoid of its
originator.
The traditional theory is INVALID by markedness, Mate,
because, simply, a logical theory must be _OPTIMALLY_
EFFICIENT. A theorist must weed out any non-
necessities, otherwise the theory suffers. Period.
I sincerely cannot grasp how even the average joe or
mary can't understand the glaring problems raised
against the traditional view here at this point.
It is a constant onus on linguistics that some people
can't understand the very basics of Logic to even see
how supporting a theory based on _rarities_ rather
than _the most commonplace things_ is completely
insane.
> OK, I'm glad you support the 3 velar series.
I'm glad you get it now. I _never_ supported anything
else, so perhaps now you can properly address what
I have said.
= gLeN
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com