Agustín Barahona wrote:

>
> El Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:04:33 -0400, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> escribió:
>
> >[...] "palatalization." [...] I was not using it in such a technical
> >sense [...]
>
> We all have read what you wrote in this thread of messages. On the other hand, we are in a scientific forum catalogued under the topic "Linguistics and Human Languages".

Catalogued where? by whom?

> By default, in absence of any other specification, the sense only can be technical, except that you are able to demonstrate that by default we all should have understood another thing. No more comments.

I think you have not understood the phrase "such a." Would "so technical
a sense" have been clearer?

> >He has now shifted the question to whether the Spanish palatal nasal
> >is in some way a subsidiary variety of the alveolar nasal.
>
> No, I haven't and you know it -otherwise you would pointed where, which in this case is impossible if one is honest-. Everybody can see it is not true (except apparently you -I wonder why-). However, the only thinking who has suffered indeed a transformation -and has tried a subsequent shifting of the question- is yours, as we all have been able to see in the undeniable and pure sequence of your assertions in my precedent message.
>
> >I have never suggested such a thing.
>
> Who actually have never suggested such a thing is me.

If you never suggested it, and I never suggested it, why are you arguing
so vehemently?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...