--- "Brian M. Scott" <
BMScott@...> wrote:
> At 5:20:54 PM on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, Sean
> Whalen wrote:
>
> > --- "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@...> wrote:
>
> >> Does it mean that in Celtic the shift *gWH >gH>g
> >> occurred before the labialization of the
> >> labio-velars?
>
> >> Time 1: k g gH kW gW gWH
> >> Time 2: k g gH kW gW
> >> Time 3: k g kW gW
> >> Time 4: k g kW b
>
> >> ???
>
> > "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> says:
>
> > Proto-Celtic:
>
> No, I don't. Kindly don't put reconstructions into
> my
> mouth.
You said:
*g, *gH, and *gWH all become OIr /g/; *gW becomes OIr
/b/.
Jackson says that all of this is Common Celtic, at
least
initially. The main source of Welsh initial /gw/ is
*w.
Then in reply to our exchange:
"Joao S. Lopes" <
josimo70@...> wrote:
> >> Does it mean that in Celtic the shift *gWH >gH>g
> >> occurred before the labialization of the
> >> labio-velars?
He asked for clarification of the ordering of gW>b
and gWH>gH>g according to what you wrote earlier.
I restated your argument using Joa~o's schema as
apparently he wanted done. I also did the same for my
argument and attributed each.
Now you say "No, I don't. Kindly don't put
reconstructions into my mouth."
Are you objecting to my saying it is your
reconstruction, when you were following Jackson?
Are you objecting to my replying to Joa~o and not
giving you enough time to make your own?
Are you objecting that my reply restated something
you wrote?
Are you objecting that my reply restated something
you wrote but could look like I was quoting you?
No quotations or > were used and I don't see how
Joa~o could think I was quoting a reply you made to
him without him seeing.
If I'm misunderstanding your objection again, let me
know.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com