From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 54207
Date: 2008-02-27
>Ok, Brian. In this case there is no contradiction between me and Piotr
> At 7:58:55 PM on Tuesday, February 26, 2008, alexandru_mg3
> wrote:
>
> > --- 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
>
> This is a non sequitur. It's what *Piotr* is saying that
> you obviously don't understand.
>
> [...]
>
> > 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...
>
> No, he didn't.
>
> Brian