From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61284
Date: 2008-11-02
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Arnaud Fournet" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:57 PM
Subject: Re[6]: [tied] Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar
Approximant
>
> At 2:42:07 PM on Sunday, November 2, 2008, Arnaud Fournet
> wrote:
>
>> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
>>> I don't much care what you can check: you're the one who
>>> tends to be sloppy about accurately representing sources,
>>> not I. But since one of the references happens to be ready
>>> to hand, I'll throw you a bone: Martin Harris, 'French', in
>>> Martin Harris & Nigel Vincent, eds., _The Romance
>>> Languages_.
>
>> P211 "complex vocalic nuclei".
>
> P. 214: 'French has three glide phonemes, /j/, /w/, and
> /turned-h/.'
=======
P211.
The author, which I remind you is your own choice, mentions explicitly that
the presentation that follows is what he considers the best
_interpretation_ (sic)
And he gives an example <vieille> which he considers is Modern French /vjej/
from Pre-Modern French /vieL/ (sic).
All this can be easily checked on google books.
I disagree that his interpretation is the best,
I cannot see any reason why he accepts the vocalic interpretation of the
prevocalic glides as vowels for pre-Modern French
and suddenly decides this vocalic interpretation should be discarded for
Modern French !?
On what grounds ??
This author self-contradicts himself.
And it does not support your theory.
You're damn wrong.
Maybe you could try with somebody else.
A.
===========
>
> [snip non sequitur in re Pope]
> > Brian
=======
Ok,
As you can't prove your previous statements
you prefer giving up,
I understand.
When you are right,
you always copy Pope down to the smallest letter.
You did that before.
Cf. my negatives expectations...
This is not an accusation but now a situation.
In any case, you 're way too proud to acknowledge you're wrong
and your assertions are unsupported.
A.
====