Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we discussing?

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 57490
Date: 2008-04-16

----- Original Message -----
From: "stlatos" <stlatos@...>

> ***
> >Patrick:
> >
>> All these long unexplained lists in your message! What do they prove?

> What do you mean by 'unexplained'? I've given lists of hundreds of
>rules before. For these examples there's some metathesis, and I
>explain a few other rules, but is it necessary to say well-known
>changes like kW>k or tt>st or ks>ks., etc?

Your mails are rather hard to read, not to say understand.

Did you feed on punch cards when a student ?