From: stlatos
Message: 57610
Date: 2008-04-18
>I'll repeat: I've already given step-by-step explanations for this
>
> --- stlatos <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> > --- 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?
> Just slow down, explain it to us step by step in your
> paradigm. Don't assume that everyone is an expert.