***
> There is a clear necessity to have both *d and *t?
> to account for clear correspondances.
> PIE *d = ST *dz = PU -r- = PAA *dh
> PIE *t? = ST *ts = PU -l- = PAA *t?
>
> Arnaud
>
> ===================
There is no PIE *t? nor PAA *t? - who besides you and Bomhard asserts this?
P.
======
I don't care what Bomhard says.
I follow my own way.
Arnaud
=================
PIE *d does not relate to PAA *dh. If you think it does, provide 4 or 5
examples.
============
I don't see why I should
provide examples
when you don't provide any
to sustain your own allegations.
Arnaud
=============
Your PU equivalencies, as Jouppe will tell you, are wrong.
========
It's getting tough again,
with a lot of *wrong* and the like.
Jouppe is a (seemingly) nice guy
although incompetent.
He counts for nil.
When it comes to you,
Your ""theory"" amounts to a bubble
and your understanding of comparative data
is appallingly inadequate.
Arnaud
===================
For Sino-Tibetan, see
http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-SINO-TIBETAN-10_table.htm
Patrick
===============
Your standard unreadable junk
as usual.
Sorry
I can't even look at this.
Arnaud
=================