--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 7:00:25 PM on Tuesday, February 26, 2008, alexandru_mg3
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> > <gpiotr@> wrote:
>
> >> On 2008-02-26 23:07, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> >>> The others two reflects only -ai not -dai => but you
> >>> have put in doubt the correct recognition of -ai NOT of
> >>> -d-
>
> >> A misunderstanding on your part. Koretland claims that
> >> there are three examples of weak preterites in <-ai>. Of
> >> course the actual ending is <-dai>. That's how a
> >> preterite must end in order to be weak.
>
> > No there is no misunderstanding on my part. I know what
> > Kortlandt claimed. I said that: that /ai/ is /ai/ (doesn't
> > matter what kind of endings we have, for preterite or for
> > something else). I said that we are talking first of all
> > about Letters there: You have put in doubt the corectness
> > of -ai on that inscriptions
>
> No, he has not. You simply don't understand what he's
> saying.
If you pay me, I will explaine you in details what Kortlandt says
there...but I don't see any interest on this topic on your side...
or maybe do you allow me to ask you what is your opinion about the
origin and the semantism of the Germanic dental preterit?
But at least, can you understand what I have said : when I said
that Letters are Letters doesn't matter where they appeared?
(I said this myself not Kortlandt, to be clear for you too)
> > and I came back with other references that's all...
>
> Which are irrelevant, since no one is disputing the
> <talgidai> reading.
>
> Brian
Brian, Brian you play the police-man role here and you finally arrive
to act accordingly :
1. I quoted First : <talgidai> and you came at started to talk about
another inscription
2. When I said again that I quoted <talgidai> you said again that you
quoted the another one (that is true... :))
3. When I said again that I quoted <talgidai> you said that this is
irrelevant, since no one is disputing the <talgidai> reading.
So this is really Hilarious....
Even so, for your information, I can tell you that PIOTR disputed
<talgidai> too (and continue to do this) saying that -ai there is NOT
AI is -ae etc... and even now he chooses to ignore this inscription
saying that is a Hapax, because -dai appears only there...when it
isn't, in fact, because we are talking about Letters there not about
endings or preterites.
So for you information (I know that this is irrelevant for you) :
he consider <talgidai> like something that doesn't exist at all
Ok? so there is somebody (more exactly this is PIOTR) that put in
question <talgidai> reading (if this is not yet clear for you)
3. Also, you coudn't make any distinction reagarding what Kortlandt
said and what I said => you are only supposing that I'm only wrongly
repeat Kortlandt...
For you Brian, I indicated Kortlandt article, for some reasons:
but I sustained here my own opinion not Kortlandt's one.
Hope this clarify.
Marius