Re: More by Bryant

>> Any approach that starts with the premiss previous studies
>> about Indic have to be thrown away is anti-science.

>And yet that is exactly what you are doing yourself when
>you scoff at such well established reconstruction as *k^w >
>Sk. s^v.

======
It's easy to make a caricature of the other guy, when you don't want to
listen.
I'm not scoffing at *k^w > *s^v.
I think it has to be dealt with differently.
Arnaud
=========

>> Even if you do not like previous studies, you will never escape
>> the issue of explaining what is not satisfactory and you won't
>> escape being compared with the bulk of existing works that are
>> considered well-established references.

> I'm amazed to see you writing this. It's true, of course,

======
Yes it's true.
Arnaud
=======

>Well you certainly do need to make a more serious study of
>it yourself. It's clear from reading you that you haven't
>anything besides the most vague understanding of mainstream
>theories.

=======
What kind of readings do you suggest ?
Arnaud
==========

No, I don't think you do know "where to emend" it.
I don't think you've convinced even a single other person that you
do either. Do you?
David
========
Nice sentence.
It would probably delight a generativist.

Arnaud
==========