Re: Finnish KASKA

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA


>
> ***
> > 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
> =================

***

Without any justification that I can see.

***

>
> 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
>
> =============

***

How many time must I publish the link that does just that?

***

> 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.

***

Jouppe is the most knowledgeable person I have come across in the field of
loans into Uralic.

You are completely unjustified in your appraisal.

***

> 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
>
> =================

***

You cannot look at anything that disturbs your idées fixes.

Borders on the pathological.


Patrick

***