Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Ryan
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:25 AM
Subject: [Courrier indsirable] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Latin -idus as
from dH- too


Here was the question, a quote:

"If you did not mean to say this, what is the IE root you believe derives
> > from Uralic *sone? And why did you not specify it?"

Where is the bias? Where is the twist?

When do you stop playing games?

Patrick

==================
M. Ryan

We were discussing the root *s(y)ew
as it is in Pokorny format.
Supposedly *s_y_w_H1
I was substantiating the reasons
why I do not believe in H1 here
because none of the Uralic words
that are *well-known* to be loan-words
displays any trace of H1
Cf. UEW, Cf Rédei, etc
*Sone is the entry word in UEW
as I stated (with the page)
I also made it clear this "sone" thing
is completely inadequate.

Now
your bias is simple :
I never wrote nor implied *sone is PIE
and even less that PIE *s(y)ew was a loanword
from PU.
So your question is really amazing,
you are kind of asking me, why I'm supposed to
think something, which I never implied,
when the problem is you mis-understood everything.

I must add that this happens all the time with you
so maybe you should read your mails slower
in order to understand who says what.

I'm not playing any games.
When you mis-understand,
I have no choice but to restate my point
in the right way.
You must have a tough time with most women,
if they still dare talking with you.

Arnaud

================