From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 54205
Date: 2008-02-27
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"This is a non sequitur. It's what *Piotr* is saying that
> <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
> Even so, for your information, I can tell you that PIOTRNo, he didn't.
> disputed <talgidai> too (and continue to do this) saying
> that -ai there is NOT AI is -ae etc...