--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 3:30:14 PM on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, stlatos wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
> > <proto-language@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> 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.
>
> Yes, you have. Do you really think that anyone else has
> learnt them?
I'm not suggesting that everyone read every rule I've ever given
here to understand each new message. I was replying to a specific,
and I believe unfair, criticism that the changes I showed were
'unexplained'. I simply said that I had explained most before, and
most importantly, that none of the changes needed a rule-based
explanation in this case. When I show, for example, *mm,kWtti+ >
*muNks.t.i+, I don't need to explain each step individually (though I
have given them before). What makes it necessary to say kW>k or the
other changes, which are all well-known for In-Ir or Iranian itself
(except perhaps C, > uC for Dardic, etc., which I did restate).
I even sent a follow-up message giving more information for anyone
interested, and clarifying most of what I wrote for those who aren't
so familiar with my rules. What more do you want me to do?
> Perhaps Piotr retains a general mental
> outline, but I'd be very much surprised if anyone else
> retained even that much. You're using a non-standard
> reconstruction of PIE phonology, your own notation,
What do you mean by this? I'm using a perfectly normal system with
only the modifications needed to show contrasts for n, vs n. (syllabic
vs retro.) and s^ vs sY (alveopal. (sh) vs palatalized).
This isn't the result of a non-standard rec. of PIE, just the desire
to use the same system for the proto- and little-known or -studied
languages which are described at the same time.