From: stlatos
Message: 57607
Date: 2008-04-18
>Wrong; as I just said, discussing both PIE and an IE language with
> 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.