From: stlatos
Message: 70968
Date: 2013-02-22
>There is no simpler solution. No opt. is needed or used, so your failure to accept the obvious is not due to that particular failing of yours. I won't accept doubt for this; your words on this and other changes show you have nothing to contribute.
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > > Of course I could be wrong, but I do not recall proposing *f > *xW, and I cannot follow your argument about it.
> > >
> > Since in Proto-Celtic p > h- / -w- / -x- , p > f > xW first is most likely. You didn't propose that part; I'm talking about your proposal that (after that change?) a borrowing with p- was adapted as f- and arguing against it since all branches make it clear xW existed within them and the name of a place wouldn't have been retained from Proto-Celtic all the way down to the language of one group who THEN happened to live next to the place where the people they supposedly borrowed it from still lived and talked. There's plenty else to say about this, but that's enough.
> >
> Your *f > *xW is unsupported, regardless of your pretzel-like rhetoric.
>