Le mercredi 20 avril 2022 à 15:00:24 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:14:13 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
> >Le mardi 19 avril 2022 à 08:46:53 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> >> Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:28:51 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >> >Indo-European studies are a structural fraud since the discovery of Hittite.
> >> >The situation is as if physics would discover new particles but would not
> >> >change the old model in order to integrate the new particles.
> >> >That's what IEanists have done: they still have their old Improved-Proto-Sanskrit
> >> >that can't integrate Hittite.
> >> >That's why the field is fundamentally a fraud.
> >> Factually incorrect:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_language#Classification
> >>
> >> Views vary.
> >
> >This paragraph does not contradict what I say.
> >It's a kind of extremely mild and smooth way of presenting what I say.
> So "Indo-European studies are" NOT "a structural fraud since the
> discovery of Hittite", but as I said, views vary, and the field is in
> motion. It is only natural that extra data requires extra
> explanations.

I think you're playing on words.
Adiego 2016 states that Hittite was an earthquake of deviancies and the field is in crisis.
Fortson IV lists the problems involved by Hittite vis-à-vis the Improved-Proto-Sanskrit model.
Personally, I just say that the field is a structural fraud.
These are not different *views*, but different *wordings* of the same issue..
The point is: the Improved-Proto-Sanskrit model, sold by the Indo-Europeanists, is not, cannot be PIE itself.

Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:32:45 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

>Le mercredi 20 avril 2022 à 14:58:20 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>> Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>> >One would ordinarily expect that the oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language the most closely;
>
>NB: I did not write this, I quoted what Fortson IV himself wrote.

OK, sorry. Yes, I remember you mentioned that. But it was a bit
confusing.

>> Among Semitic languages, Akkadian is old, but not as conservative as
>> the much later Arabic.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:38:17 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

>Le mercredi 20 avril 2022 à 15:00:24 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>> Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:14:13 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>
>> >Le mardi 19 avril 2022 à 08:46:53 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>> >> Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:28:51 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>> >> >Indo-European studies are a structural fraud since the discovery of Hittite.
>> >> >The situation is as if physics would discover new particles but would not
>> >> >change the old model in order to integrate the new particles.
>> >> >That's what IEanists have done: they still have their old Improved-Proto-Sanskrit
>> >> >that can't integrate Hittite.
>> >> >That's why the field is fundamentally a fraud.
>> >> Factually incorrect:
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_language#Classification
>> >>
>> >> Views vary.
>> >
>> >This paragraph does not contradict what I say.
>> >It's a kind of extremely mild and smooth way of presenting what I say.
>> So "Indo-European studies are" NOT "a structural fraud since the
>> discovery of Hittite", but as I said, views vary, and the field is in
>> motion. It is only natural that extra data requires extra
>> explanations.
>
>I think you're playing on words.
>Adiego 2016 states that Hittite was an earthquake of deviancies and the field is in crisis.
>Fortson IV lists the problems involved by Hittite vis-à-vis the Improved-Proto-Sanskrit model.
>Personally, I just say that the field is a structural fraud.
>These are not different *views*, but different *wordings* of the same issue.

I disagree.

"Fraud" suggests that there is deliberate wrongdoing.

The "different wording" expresses that new data (well, Hittite was
already known to exist in 1902, I read) requires recalibration of
existing scientific insights and hypotheses. That is normal, in
conscientious and honest science.

That new, generally accepted views on this, which fits in also the new
data, don't emerge overnight, is also normal. It happens in many
fields. Also, for example, in cosmology, when they find quasars or
other sources of radiation and whatnot.

>The point is: the Improved-Proto-Sanskrit model, sold by the Indo-Europeanists, is not, cannot be PIE itself.

If you so. I know virtually nothing of the field myself, so I can't
comment.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:08:58 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:38:17 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>The point is: the Improved-Proto-Sanskrit model, sold by the Indo-Europeanists, is not, cannot be PIE itself.
>
>If you

say

>so. I know virtually nothing of the field myself, so I can't
>comment.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:32:45 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >Le mercredi 20 avril 2022 à 14:58:20 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> >> Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> >> >One would ordinarily expect that the oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language the most closely;
> >NB: I did not write this, I quoted what Fortson IV himself wrote.
>
> OK, sorry. Yes, I remember you mentioned that. But it was a bit
> confusing.

I didn't notice that he was quoting Fortson, because he doesn't know
how to mark quotations in a message.

_Or_ to delimit his lines so they can be quoted legibly.

> >> Among Semitic languages, Akkadian is old, but not as conservative as
> >> the much later Arabic.

Phonologically only.

Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 16:42:32 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:32:45 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> > >Le mercredi 20 avril 2022 à 14:58:20 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> > >> Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
> > >> >One would ordinarily expect that the oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language the most closely;
> > >NB: I did not write this, I quoted what Fortson IV himself wrote.
> >
> > OK, sorry. Yes, I remember you mentioned that. But it was a bit
> > confusing.
> I didn't notice that he was quoting Fortson, because he doesn't know
> how to mark quotations in a message.
I wrote this and I think it's perfectly clear:
"Here's Fortson IV (2010):
9.4. The main difficulty posed by Anatolian for Indo-Europeanists is the fact that its structure is quite different from that of PIE as traditionally reconstructed. One would ordinarily expect that the oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language the most closely; and it is true that Anatolian does preserve a number of important archaisms, notably consonantal reflexes of at least one (and probably two) of the three laryngeals and productive classes of neuter r/n-stems. But most striking are the forms and categories that it does not have. Absent are such apparently bedrock IE formations as simple thematic verbs, the aorist, the perfect, the subjunctive, the optative, the dual, the *-tó-verbal adjective, and the comparative in *-jos-. [Emphasis mine] Additionally, some inherited grammatical forms function differently from their congeners in the rest of IE: endings identifiable with those of the IE perfect are used to form a class of presents (the so-called hi-conjugation; §9.12); and the *-nt-participle, which has active voice in the other IE languages, is passive in Anatolian.
One interpretation of these facts is that the forms missing from Anatolian were simply lost, and that the traditional reconstruction of PIE is perfectly valid. But evidence has been growing that Anatolian split off at a time when the development of some of these categories (such as the s-aorist) was only nascent. Under this view, PIE went through some subsequent development before achieving its “classic” look; the “missing data” of Anatolian are then partly attributable to loss, and partly to their not having existed yet. An early version of this theory was propounded by the American Indo-Europeanist Edgar Sturtevant, who thought Anatolian was a sister of reconstruct-ed PIE and that both were derived from a language he called “Indo-Hittite” (a term that later fell out of favor). [End quote]"

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:09:01 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:38:17 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> >Adiego 2016 states that Hittite was an earthquake of deviancies and the field is in crisis.
> >Fortson IV lists the problems involved by Hittite vis-à-vis the Improved-Proto-Sanskrit model.
> >Personally, I just say that the field is a structural fraud.
> >These are not different *views*, but different *wordings* of the same issue.
>
> I disagree.
>
> "Fraud" suggests that there is deliberate wrongdoing.
>
> The "different wording" expresses that new data (well, Hittite was
> already known to exist in 1902, I read) requires recalibration of
> existing scientific insights and hypotheses. That is normal, in
> conscientious and honest science.

Knudtson already had the essentials of Hittite on the basis of the
only two Amarna Letters written in Hittite, but his work (along with
articles by two IEists) was disregarded and was not considered to
be demonstrated until Hrozny in 1915, who had a massive corpus
from Boghazkoy to work with..

> That new, generally accepted views on this, which fits in also the new
> data, don't emerge overnight, is also normal. It happens in many
> fields. Also, for example, in cosmology, when they find quasars or
> other sources of radiation and whatnot.

As historians and philosophers of science regularly point out, paradigms
do not finish shifting until the last adherents of the old view have passed
on. For instance, IE "laryngeal theory" was still opposed by Oswald
Szemerenyi. through his excellent Handbook from Oxford. W. P. Lehmann
found a way to reconcile laryngeals with the older view, making them
simply three post-velar consonants.

> >The point is: the Improved-Proto-Sanskrit model, sold by the Indo-Europeanists, is not, cannot be PIE itself.
> If you so. I know virtually nothing of the field myself, so I can't
> comment.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:46:11 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 16:42:32 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:32:45 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > > <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> > > >Le mercredi 20 avril 2022 à 14:58:20 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> > > >> Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > > >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> > > >> >One would ordinarily expect that the oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language the most closely;
> > > >NB: I did not write this, I quoted what Fortson IV himself wrote.
> > > OK, sorry. Yes, I remember you mentioned that. But it was a bit
> > > confusing.
> > I didn't notice that he was quoting Fortson, because he doesn't know
> > how to mark quotations in a message.
>
> I wrote this and I think it's perfectly clear:

Oh. Is _that _what Ruud was talking about. In that case, it's on him.

However, the passage below does not conform to "Usenet" conventions
for quoting.

It doesn't matter how clear it is to you, it matters how clear it is to your
readers.

Assuming your readers have not stopped reading anything you write
because you call them nasty names in every message.

> "Here's Fortson IV (2010):
> 9.4. The main difficulty posed by Anatolian for Indo-Europeanists is ...
[End quote]

Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

>Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 16:42:32 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> > Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:32:45 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> > <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>> > >Le mercredi 20 avril 2022 à 14:58:20 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>> > >> Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> > >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>
>> > >> >One would ordinarily expect that the oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language the most closely;
>> > >NB: I did not write this, I quoted what Fortson IV himself wrote.
>> >
>> > OK, sorry. Yes, I remember you mentioned that. But it was a bit
>> > confusing.
>> I didn't notice that he was quoting Fortson, because he doesn't know
>> how to mark quotations in a message.
>I wrote this and I think it's perfectly clear:

No, it looks like a screen full of letters and words, without any
further structure. Very tiring to decipher. Putting quotes on lines of
their own, then whitespace, then your own comments, for example, would
be much clearer.

>"Here's Fortson IV (2010):
>9.4. The main dif?culty posed by Anatolian for Indo-Europeanists is the fact that its structure is quite different from that of PIE as traditionally reconstructed. One would ordinarily expect that the oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language the most closely; and it is true that Anatolian does
preserve a number of important archaisms, notably consonantal reflexes of at least one (and probably two) of the three laryngeals and productive classes of neuter r/n-stems. But most striking are the forms and categories that it does not have. Absent are such apparently bedrock IE formations as simple thematic verbs, the aorist,
the perfect, the subjunctive, the optative, the dual, the *-tó-verbal adjective, and the comparative in *-jos-. [Emphasis mine] Additionally, some inherited grammatical forms function differently from their congeners in the rest of IE: endings identi?able with those of the IE perfect are used to form a class of presents (the
so-called
>hi-conjugation; §9.12); and the *-nt-participle, which has active voice in the other IE languages, is passive in Anatolian.
>One interpretation of these facts is that the forms missing from Anatolian were simply lost, and that the traditional reconstruction of PIE is perfectly valid. But evidence has been growing that Anatolian split off at a time when the development of some of these categories (such as the s-aorist) was only nascent. Under this view,
PIE went through some subsequent development before achieving its “classic” look; the “missing data” of Anatolian are then partly attributable to loss, and partly to their not having existed yet. An early version of this theory was propounded by the American Indo-Europeanist Edgar Sturtevant, who thought Anatolian was a sister of
reconstruct-ed PIE and that both were derived from a language he called “Indo-Hittite” (a term that later fell out of favor). [End quote]"

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 17:59:40 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
> >Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 16:42:32 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> >> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> > Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:32:45 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> > <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >> > >Le mercredi 20 avril 2022 à 14:58:20 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> >> > >> Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> > >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >>
> >> > >> >One would ordinarily expect that the oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language the most closely;
> >> > >NB: I did not write this, I quoted what Fortson IV himself wrote.
> >> >
> >> > OK, sorry. Yes, I remember you mentioned that. But it was a bit
> >> > confusing.
> >> I didn't notice that he was quoting Fortson, because he doesn't know
> >> how to mark quotations in a message.
> >I wrote this and I think it's perfectly clear:
> No, it looks like a screen full of letters and words, without any
> further structure. Very tiring to decipher. Putting quotes on lines of
> their own, then whitespace, then your own comments, for example, would
> be much clearer.

Precisely what I did.
I don't know which Planet you live on.
On mine, things are very clear.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:39:30 PM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 17:59:40 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> > Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> > >Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 16:42:32 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > >> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >> > Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:32:45 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > >> > <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> > >> > >Le mercredi 20 avril 2022 à 14:58:20 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> > >> > >> Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > >> > >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> > >> > >> >One would ordinarily expect that the oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language the most closely;
> > >> > >NB: I did not write this, I quoted what Fortson IV himself wrote.
> > >> > OK, sorry. Yes, I remember you mentioned that. But it was a bit
> > >> > confusing.
> > >> I didn't notice that he was quoting Fortson, because he doesn't know
> > >> how to mark quotations in a message.
> > >I wrote this and I think it's perfectly clear:
> > No, it looks like a screen full of letters and words, without any
> > further structure. Very tiring to decipher. Putting quotes on lines of
> > their own, then whitespace, then your own comments, for example, would
> > be much clearer.
> Precisely what I did.
> I don't know which Planet you live on.
> On mine, things are very clear.

Your "planet" may be emitting nonstandard characters: Line Feed
vs. Carriage Return, for instance, if you are seeing blank spaces
where no one else is.

Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 22:01:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:39:30 PM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 17:59:40 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> > > Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > > <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> > > >Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 16:42:32 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > >> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > >> > Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:32:45 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > > >> > <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> > > >> > >Le mercredi 20 avril 2022 à 14:58:20 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> > > >> > >> Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > > >> > >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
> > > >> > >> >One would ordinarily expect that the oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language the most closely;
> > > >> > >NB: I did not write this, I quoted what Fortson IV himself wrote.
> > > >> > OK, sorry. Yes, I remember you mentioned that. But it was a bit
> > > >> > confusing.
> > > >> I didn't notice that he was quoting Fortson, because he doesn't know
> > > >> how to mark quotations in a message.
> > > >I wrote this and I think it's perfectly clear:
> > > No, it looks like a screen full of letters and words, without any
> > > further structure. Very tiring to decipher. Putting quotes on lines of
> > > their own, then whitespace, then your own comments, for example, would
> > > be much clearer.
> > Precisely what I did.
> > I don't know which Planet you live on.
> > On mine, things are very clear.
> Your "planet" may be emitting nonstandard characters: Line Feed
> vs. Carriage Return, for instance, if you are seeing blank spaces
> where no one else is.
I've no idea what you're talking about. I have no problems at all.
You're the only one who seems to have a problem.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:53:08 PM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 22:01:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:39:30 PM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 17:59:40 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> > > > Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > > > <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> > > > >Le jeudi 21 avril 2022 à 16:42:32 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > >> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > > >> > Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:32:45 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > > > >> > <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> > > > >> > >Le mercredi 20 avril 2022 à 14:58:20 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> > > > >> > >> Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > > > >> > >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> > > > >> > >> >One would ordinarily expect that the oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language the most closely;
> > > > >> > >NB: I did not write this, I quoted what Fortson IV himself wrote.
> > > > >> > OK, sorry. Yes, I remember you mentioned that. But it was a bit
> > > > >> > confusing.
> > > > >> I didn't notice that he was quoting Fortson, because he doesn't know
> > > > >> how to mark quotations in a message.
> > > > >I wrote this and I think it's perfectly clear:
> > > > No, it looks like a screen full of letters and words, without any
> > > > further structure. Very tiring to decipher. Putting quotes on lines of
> > > > their own, then whitespace, then your own comments, for example, would
> > > > be much clearer.
> > > Precisely what I did.
> > > I don't know which Planet you live on.
> > > On mine, things are very clear.
> > Your "planet" may be emitting nonstandard characters: Line Feed
> > vs. Carriage Return, for instance, if you are seeing blank spaces
> > where no one else is.
>
> I've no idea what you're talking about. I have no problems at all.
> You're the only one who seems to have a problem.

Hardly a problem, since just about no one reads what you post,
because of your nasty behavior.

But you seem to be in a minority of one who does not conform
to the standards for posting messages.

On 2022-04-21 19:53, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

> I've no idea what you're talking about. I have no problems at all.
> You're the only one who seems to have a problem.

It's definitely not just PTD. There is definitely a formatting problem
with your posts (I'm currently reading this group using Thunderbird).

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 2022-04-21 14:46:09 +0000, Arnaud Fournet said:

> 9.4. The main difficulty posed by Anatolian for Indo-Europeanists is the
> fact that its structure is quite different from that of PIE as
> traditionally reconstructed. One would ordinarily expect that the
> oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language
> the most closely; and it is true that Anatolian does preserve a number
> of important archaisms, notably consonantal reflexes of at least one
> (and probably two) of the three laryngeals and productive classes of
> neuter r/n-stems. But most striking are the forms and categories that
> it does not have. Absent are such apparently bedrock IE formations as
> simple thematic verbs, the aorist, the perfect, the subjunctive, the
> optative, the dual, the *-tó-verbal adjective, and the comparative in
> *-jos-. [Emphasis mine] Additionally, some inherited grammatical forms
> function differently from their congeners in the rest of IE: endings
> identifiable with those of the IE perfect are used to form a class of
> presents (the so-called hi-conjugation; §9.12); and the
> *-nt-participle, which has active voice in the other IE languages, is
> passive in Anatolian.
> One interpretation of these facts is that the forms missing from
> Anatolian were simply lost, and that the traditional reconstruction of
> PIE is perfectly valid. But evidence has been growing that Anatolian
> split off at a time when the development of some of these categories
> (such as the s-aorist) was only nascent. Under this view, PIE went
> through some subsequent development before achieving its “classic”
> look; the “missing data” of Anatolian are then partly attributable to
> loss, and partly to their not having existed yet. An early version of
> this theory was propounded by the American Indo-Europeanist Edgar
> Sturtevant, who thought Anatolian was a sister of reconstruct-ed PIE
> and that both were derived from a language he called “Indo-Hittite” (a
> term that later fell out of favor). [End quote]"

The two lines above are too long. You should split your lines, including
quoted lines, to a reasonable length (no longer that 72 characters).

Mikko

Le samedi 23 avril 2022 à 14:50:23 UTC+2, Mikko a écrit :
> On 2022-04-21 14:46:09 +0000, Arnaud Fournet said:
>
> > 9.4. The main difficulty posed by Anatolian for Indo-Europeanists is the
> > fact that its structure is quite different from that of PIE as
> > traditionally reconstructed. One would ordinarily expect that the
> > oldest known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language
> > the most closely; and it is true that Anatolian does preserve a number
> > of important archaisms, notably consonantal reflexes of at least one
> > (and probably two) of the three laryngeals and productive classes of
> > neuter r/n-stems. But most striking are the forms and categories that
> > it does not have. Absent are such apparently bedrock IE formations as
> > simple thematic verbs, the aorist, the perfect, the subjunctive, the
> > optative, the dual, the *-tó-verbal adjective, and the comparative in
> > *-jos-. [Emphasis mine] Additionally, some inherited grammatical forms
> > function differently from their congeners in the rest of IE: endings
> > identifiable with those of the IE perfect are used to form a class of
> > presents (the so-called hi-conjugation; §9.12); and the
> > *-nt-participle, which has active voice in the other IE languages, is
> > passive in Anatolian.
> > One interpretation of these facts is that the forms missing from
> > Anatolian were simply lost, and that the traditional reconstruction of
> > PIE is perfectly valid. But evidence has been growing that Anatolian
> > split off at a time when the development of some of these categories
> > (such as the s-aorist) was only nascent. Under this view, PIE went
> > through some subsequent development before achieving its “classic”
> > look; the “missing data” of Anatolian are then partly attributable to
> > loss, and partly to their not having existed yet. An early version of
> > this theory was propounded by the American Indo-Europeanist Edgar
> > Sturtevant, who thought Anatolian was a sister of reconstruct-ed PIE
> > and that both were derived from a language he called “Indo-Hittite” (a
> > term that later fell out of favor). [End quote]"
> The two lines above are too long. You should split your lines, including
> quoted lines, to a reasonable length (no longer that 72 characters).
>
> Mikko
I have no way of selecting a parameter, that would achieve that formatting of 72 characters.
This is beyond my control.

Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:36:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>I have no way of selecting a parameter, that would achieve that formatting of 72 characters.
>This is beyond my control.

In Google Groups, which you seem to be using, you are supposed to
introduce the line breaks manually yourself. Quite primitive, but
well, it's GG.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 10:36:19 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> Le samedi 23 avril 2022 à 14:50:23 UTC+2, Mikko a écrit :

> > The two lines above are too long. You should split your lines, including
> > quoted lines, to a reasonable length (no longer that 72 characters).
>
> I have no way of selecting a parameter, that would achieve that formatting of 72 characters.
> This is beyond my control.

You touch the Enter (or Return) key at the end of a line of a normal length..
It is no more onerous, and it is easier, than using a typewriter used to be..

In many cases, you do need to do the same with a passage you copy-
paste from a source.

Le samedi 23 avril 2022 à 18:36:50 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 10:36:19 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > Le samedi 23 avril 2022 à 14:50:23 UTC+2, Mikko a écrit :
>
> > > The two lines above are too long. You should split your lines, including
> > > quoted lines, to a reasonable length (no longer that 72 characters).
> >
> > I have no way of selecting a parameter, that would achieve that formatting of 72 characters.
> > This is beyond my control.
> You touch the Enter (or Return) key at the end of a line of a normal length.
> It is no more onerous, and it is easier, than using a typewriter used to be.
>
> In many cases, you do need to do the same with a passage you copy-
> paste from a source.
Another possibility is that I answer my own post, so that the system will reformat it.