Re: * Re: Push (3)

From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 62501
Date: 2009-01-15

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>

Please quote sources in the future, otherwise people won't believe you.

=======
So far, I never mentioned something I could not show.
A.
=======

> The mould of that root *puwe.
> A.
> =======
So p- in anlaut is lost in Moksha but not in Ersha?
Please explain.

=======
I believe *puH is a better reconstruction,
*puH-a > Erzia puv-a-ms
but
Moksha is upH-a > uf-a-ms.

A.
=======

> Basically this means -as usual- that the supposed reconstructions
> are garbage. For example, Vogul Pelymka putääs < **puS^e and then
> Vogul Pelymka püwt < **puske

Do you know the rules that have been used to explain these
developments, and if yes, have you proposed alternative ones?

======
There's no rules, I'm afraid.
I'm trying to propose a coherent system
but this takes time.
A.
=======

> Ah
> They changed river-sides in nepheloghdhonia, I suppose,
> and they were coming from the east. A fact, as you say.
> A.
> =====
How about this:
your criticism is eiorughpfuhiodufghous, your knowledge on the subject
is oudfghidofhljdfæljkhhgcal, and your behavior on cybalist is
oæsdfihjpdosæfbæsdfuvnhous.
Please note how élégantly I have skewered you with my Danish ésprit.
Hahahaha. You were saying?
========
I can see nothing Danish,
Danish is full of glottal stops, I see none.
Are you really a Dane or a word-processor gone wild ?
A.

NB :
no é on esprit.

======