>In Uralic, -m and -t/-n are generally the 1 & 2 person subject
>markers both in the subjective and objective conjugations.

I want firm examples of what you're talking about, not lazy
blanket statements.

>>Since there is no such thing as an intransitive **bher-t without
>>a supposedly transitive marker **-e- to prove Miguel's case,
>>I'm not sure how he can logically justify this view.
>*bher-t is exactly Latin <fert>.

Perhaps you're not good with reading. I just finished saying that
*(e)bhert is not a special "INTRANSITIVE". It's a PAST
tense form.

To prove an original intransitive/transitive contrast using
*-e-, you must find forms with and without *-e- that actually
CORRELATE with a transitive and instransitive usage. The past
tense has nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to do with transitivity.

>Opposition between definite and indefinite adjectives is a regular
>feature of at least Slavic, Germanic and Tocharian.

Meaningless. There are many languages with that feature. Your
point was? It doesn't prove your theory about IE thematic stems.
ProtoGermanic does not in anyway have definite/indefinite adjectives
with *-e/o-. And if Tocharian and Slavic do, then one can only
imagine why a hundred-and-one competent IndoEuropeanologists haven't
yet reconstructed it for IndoEuropean yet.

Dream on, Miguel.

- love gLeN

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp