Re[5]: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter

At 5:22:17 PM on Thursday, March 20, 2008, fournet.arnaud
wrote:

> From: Brian M. Scott

>> At 3:57:58 PM on Thursday, March 20, 2008, fournet.arnaud
>> wrote:

>>>> I wouldn't be surprised if it was precisely senex ~
>>>> senem what led Martinet to look into the matter of
>>>> laryngeal hardening in the first place.

>>>> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

>> You are supposed to be
>> a reliable serious IE expert.
>> You claim you read Martinet
>> and you wrote "I wouldn't be surprised..."

>> I have to contradict you once again,
>> No, this is not true,
>> it's obvious you did not read him,

> I doubt it. Can you quote a passage in which Martinet
> explains what led him to investigate laryngeal hardening?
> If not, then Miguel's 'I wouldn't be surprised' comment
> says absolutely nothing about whether he's read Martinet
> or not.

> Martinet, 1975, Evolution des langues et reconstruction,
> PUF, Paris.

> P148

> "les formes indo-européennes en -a:k
> et leurs thématisations en -a:ko- paraissent
> désigner surtout des êtres masculins,
> on est amené à penser que -k- est apparu
> dans des contextes particuliers aux masculins.
> Ceci évoque les masculins en -a:- du grec,
> avec leur -s# de nominatif singulier,
> s'opposant aux féminins sans -s#.
> Ce serait donc devant la désinence -s
> du nominatif singulier que H2,
> phonétiquement quelque fricative dorso-vélaire,
> se serait durci en -k- alors qu'il tendait
> à s'affaiblir partout ailleurs."

Which says absolutely nothing relevant. You are still
failing to distinguish (1) exposition of a hypothesis from
(2) the train of thought that led to the hypothesis in the
first place. As those of us who have published academic
papers know, they are usually very different.

Brian