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

At 11:27:37 PM on Thursday, April 17, 2008, stlatos wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 3:30:14 PM on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, stlatos wrote:

[...]

>>> 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. [...]

I'm afraid that you greatly underestimate the opacity of
your posts and the degree to which a framework that you take
for granted is foreign to your readers. It doesn't help
that you also write nearly telegraphic prose packed with
abbreviations.

[...]

>> 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.

It certainly is a non-standard reconstruction of PIE
phonology; were it not, you'd not need those notational
modifications.

In any case my comments were intended more as explanation
than as complaint.

Brian