From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 55500
Date: 2008-03-18
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>
>You have not provided the slighest
>beginning of an explanation for
>Latin iecur and Skrt yakr
I _have_ explained it.
===========
In which message ?
Arnaud
=============
>>***dhe:ghom does not exist
>>Anatolian is ambiguous and does not
>>permit to contrast any e from e:
>>As you have repeatedly explained
>>but failed to understand what it entails
>>for your theory.
>
>As I have repeatedly explained, Anatolian provides clear
>evidence to distinguish between /e/, /e:/ and /eh1/.
>===========
>
>No, M. Carrasquer Vidal,
>
>You have explained that
>Hittite always has e: which
>doesn't contrast with
>never-attested *e
>Anatolian does not support your theory.
>It's neutral.
And you're confusing Hittite and Anatolian again. Are you
being deliberately stupid?
===========
I'm summarizing what
*you* have written
You provided some scarce
Hittite information
and refused to explain
Why pir and kir proved anything.
Don't blame me because
you failed to do something.
Arnaud
=============
Well, your ignorance of the IE data is so abysmal, that your
opinion on the matter is of no value.
I'll stop wasting my time.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
=======================
The issue is not settled
Any time you pop up with
your defunct fancy
You'll get your share again.
As regards abysmal ignorance
and shameful absurdities,
Let me remind you
That your absurd theory
Claims that inherited *yekwr
and the Germanic loanword
*liposa > *libaro:
prove a allophony !!
in pre-PIE
Ludicrous.
Cf. Message 55450
Don't be too condescendent
I think competent people can see
what's going on
And you are the one
who is laughable.
M Carrasquer Vidal
The man who invented an allophony
in pre-PIE on the basis of a loanword
Ha Ha Ha !
It's going to make a hit
in linguistic circles.
Maybe you are better
at cooking turbot ?
Arnaud
===============