>My point was that you said: "Again, it would be nice to see any
>sort of hint at an original opposition between "definite" adjectives versus
>"indefinite" ones in IndoEuropean. Instead, there
>is no such opposition anywhere within the corpus of IE studies",
>which is patently untrue.

It depends on whether you wish to have a serious discussion, as
I do, or whether you wish to play a childish game of semantics.
Unless you have a mental disorder that prevents you from
understanding the context in which the rebuttals of others sit,
I would dare charge that you're trying to be funny and failing
miserably at it >:P

>In all these languages, as well as in a few where the
>verbal object agreement has been lost, we find the system to be
>largely a duplicate of the nominal possessive paradigm,

Yes, there's no doubt that this is in part true. However, if
you take another look at these systems, there is something
that begs attention if we are to further connect the Boreal
system with that of IndoTyrrhenian.

We all know that you enjoy ad-hoc phonological rules but one
cannot simply passively dismiss the alternations of *m/*w in the
first person, of *t/*n in the second and of *i/NULL as nothing
more than arcane sound changes. Of note is the fact that the
above first and third person alternations show up even in IE.

Clearly, underlying the Boreal and IndoTyrrhenian systems lies
_two_ sets of pronominal endings:

1ps *-im *-ux
2ps *-it *-un
3ps *-i NULL

I'm not the only one to feel this way since Bomhard has suggested
this in "Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis",
mentioning differing endings for the subjective and objective
of Uralic. Why, even dopey ol' mass-comparativist Greenberg had
stumbled on this to a degree.

How can you possibly explain away the above alternations I
outline aside from irrationally ignoring them altogether?

- love gLeN

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