Alternative to the laryngeal theory

So, do you think that my method for interpreting the toponyms is correct

I am not a specialist in IE, so the number of PIE words I know by heart is limited and I do not have the time to check if the roots that you present are right.

Take for example your h2en+*dheh2+*unt+*om, "near that which flows"

h2en means "there" in PIE. There is a pronominal root h1e, so its nom ntr may be h1en, "that". Are both roots related? I do not know.

What is "dheh2"? I looked up the PIE root for "flow" and found only srew and plew. There is a root dheu that means "flow", attested in the Germanic languages (one of the subfamilies of IE I am quite knowledgeable). I do not know if it is a PIE verb.

the formative morpheme for building the present participle is ont

How exactly do you explain the ending of Andautonia?  When om is meant to be the nom ntr marker, there can be no formative suffix behind it.

But since morphemes of Greek and Sanskrit can be shown to be related by applying regular sound changes, this is not even relevant.

For instance, Sanskrit ending for 3rd prs sg present is "ti", and Ancient Greek has a zero morpheme there. How to explain that? Was there a stage in AG when final i-es weren't allowed but final t-es were?

I doubt that

I haven't looked much into the Liburnian language, I just assumed what's written on the Croatian Wikipedia about it to be the mainstream science. Besides, explaining the apparent Anatolian loanwords in the Chakavian dialect by Liburnian being a late Anatolian language doesn't appear particularly unreasonable.

h2en means "there" in PIE. There is a pronominal root h1e, so its nom ntr may be h1en, "that". Are both roots related? I do not know.

*h2en is the source of the English preposition "on". In PIE, it was a postposition meaning "by" or "near". PIE postpositions obviously easily become prefixes in daughter languages.

What is "dheh2"? I looked up the PIE root for "flow" and found only srew and plew. There is a root dheu that means "flow", attested in the Germanic languages (one of the subfamilies of IE I am quite knowledgeable). I do not know if it is a PIE verb.

*dheh2 is the source of the root *danu (whence, for instance, Danubed) in the Old European Hydronimy. That is, *danu=*dheh2+*nu, "that which flows" (or, more accurately, "that which is flown"). The Latin word "fons", I think, is also said to come from *dheh2 (although ablaut doesn't happen regularly in the participles).

How exactly do you explain the ending of Andautonia?  When om is meant to be the nom ntr marker, there can be no formative suffix behind it.

"-onia" was a common ending in Vulgar Latin, there is no reason to think it was the native one.

For instance, Sanskrit ending for 3rd prs sg present is "ti", and Ancient Greek has a zero morpheme there. How to explain that? Was there a stage in AG when final i-es weren't allowed but final t-es were?

The i of ti went lost in most IE languages, so it is likely to have got lost very early. I can't see a problem here.

*h2en is the source of the English preposition "on". In PIE, it was a postposition meaning "by" or "near".

Ok
 

*dheh2 is the source of the root *danu (whence, for instance, Danubed) in the Old European Hydronimy. That is, *danu=*dheh2+*nu, "that which flows" (or, more accurately, "that which is flown"). The Latin word "fons", I think, is also said to come from *dheh2 (although ablaut doesn't happen regularly in the participles).

I know that danu- is a word for river. I do not know if a root dheh2 is attested otherwise. But deriving danu from a form dheh2=nu sounds theoretically reasonable

"-onia" was a common ending in Vulgar Latin, there is no reason to think it was the native one.

I understood before that you explained the -on- in -onia from IE -om.

But it is entirely possible that h2en+*dheh2+*unt+*om, "at the river" became something like andauto-. The common IE root for river though in European hydronomy is danu-. But when you can find other instances in Croatia or nearby areas, where a form dauto- means river you have a point.

The i of ti went lost in most IE languages, so it is likely to have got lost very early.

In Croatian you say "On će to oprati." ("HE will wash it."), but you say "Oprat će to." ("He/she/it will wash it.") Is it possible that it dates back to PIE? Did PIE have some sort of sandhi that caused the final "i" to be elided in most of the cases?

I do not know if a root dheh2 is attested otherwise.

I know it is supposed by some to be the source of the Latin "fons", whence "fountain". Though PIE *dheh2+*nt would give Latin "fans", and it's not clear to me why an ablaut would have happened. Sometimes it just happens that I go off the mainstream science without actually knowing that.

But when you can find other instances in Croatia or nearby areas, where a form dauto- means river you have a point.

There are a few streams named "Darda" or similar. But that doesn't count, right?

In Croatian you say "On će to oprati." ("HE will wash it."), but you say "Oprat će to." ("He/she/it will wash it.") Is it possible that it dates back to PIE? Did PIE have some sort of sandhi that caused the final "i" to be elided in most of the cases?

In Old Church Slavonic the 3rd person sg ending of the present tense is -тъ, that goes back to the PIE 3rd person primary ending -ti

But your question has nothing to do with the issue we are currently discussing because će oprati is obviously a compound tense and oprati is an infinitive, not a conjugated form, so I do not know why you bring it up here. -ti is already the marker of the infinitive in Old Church Slavonian. I do not know if it was reduced to -t in certain instances or if it was always -ti and the -t/-ti opposition is a Croatian innovation. But it does not go back to PIE. So the answer of your final question is no.

If PIE had features of external sandhi at all is discussed among linguists.

I know it is supposed by some to be the source of the Latin "fons", whence "fountain". Though PIE *dheh2+*nt would give Latin "fans", and it's not clear to me why an ablaut would have happened. Sometimes it just happens that I go off the mainstream science without actually knowing that.

I do not know it either. What pops up quickly at the internet is not always "mainstream science" (whatever that means)

There are a few streams named "Darda" or similar. But that doesn't count, right?

Not really.

Finding a reasonable etymology for a toponym remains guesswork as long as it is an isolated example. If Hrozny had only that one famous sentence, his suggestion what it means would have remained an assumption either. Luckily he had thousands of clay tablets to test his idea.

In Old Church Slavonic the 3rd person sg ending of the present tense is -тъ, that goes back to the PIE 3rd person primary ending -ti

Really? I thought the final schwas in OCS were just epentheses caused by the law of open syllables.

But your question has nothing to do with the issue we are currently discussing.

We were discussing why the final i-es in PIE conjugations got lost in many IE languages (and subsequently, in languages such as AG, triggered the loss of the final t-es). A reasonable assumption is that PIE -ti and -t were interchangeable, or that the sandhi dictated which one would occur. The same happens in Croatian. So, the question whether the two phenomena are related naturally comes to mind.

Finding a reasonable etymology for a toponym remains guesswork as long as it is an isolated example.

I wouldn't say it's an isolated example. Near Osijek, there is a stream named Darda, and, in Baranja, there is one named Darna. Don't you think they are too similar to be unrelated? Plus, Za(=near)-dar is quite a common toponym in  both Slavonia and Baranja. Though I am not sure if *daut would give *dar(d) in Croatian by regular sound changes. I know only that *aur turns to *ubr (Epi-daurum->Dubrovnik). That's why I am trying to deal only with the ancient toponyms as much as I can.

Does anyone know some Old Church Slavonic word with the segment "aut"?

Quote

In Old Church Slavonic the 3rd person sg ending of the present tense is -тъ, that goes back to the PIE 3rd person primary ending -ti

Really? I thought the final schwas in OCS were just epentheses caused by the law of open syllables.

In pre-Slavic period - and if you hold the view that Baltic and Slavic are closely related in Common Balto-Slavic - final t got lost, so OCS -тъ must at least come from a form -tV rather than -t.

Quote

But your question has nothing to do with the issue we are currently discussing.

We were discussing why the final i-es in PIE conjugations got lost in many IE languages (and subsequently, in languages such as AG, triggered the loss of the final t-es). A reasonable assumption is that PIE -ti and -t were interchangeable, or that the sandhi dictated which one would occur. The same happens in Croatian. So, the question whether the two phenomena are related naturally comes to mind.

Tell me when I am wrong, but I assume that the switch from oprati to oprat is dictated by word order rather than by phonetics. In this case it is no example of external sandhi.

Also, the question remains if it is peculiar to Croatian or a widespread phenomenon in Slavic languages attested in the earliest documents. I do not know that.

Quote

Finding a reasonable etymology for a toponym remains guesswork as long as it is an isolated example.

I wouldn't say it's an isolated example. Near Osijek, there is a stream named Darda, and, in Baranja, there is one named Darna. Don't you think they are too similar to be unrelated? Plus, Za(=near)-dar is quite a common toponym in  both Slavonia and Baranja. Though I am not sure if *daut would give *dar(d) in Croatian by regular sound changes. I know only that *aur turns to *ubr (Epi-daurum->Dubrovnik). That's why I am trying to deal only with the ancient toponyms as much as I can.

I can say nothing about that.

OK, let's limit ourselves to what we know. I don't know Croatian grammar in details, I am just a native speaker. So, my interpretation that Andautonia=*h2en+*dheh2+*ont+*om is possible but shaky. What do you think of my interpretation of the root *issa~~*iasa in Issa, Balissa and Iasa (places with ancient thermae), that it comes from PIE *yes+*eh2 ("where a lot of springs are")?

What do you think of my interpretation of the root *issa~~*iasa in Issa, Balissa and Iasa (places with ancient thermae), that it comes from PIE *yes+*eh2 ("where a lot of springs are")?

I only know that *yes- is the source of Germanic *jesana which actually meant "to ferment". The root may have been a word for "boil" or something.

*eh2 is the feminine suffix, although initially it may have been a formative suffix for abstract or uncountable nouns.

So how do you get the meaning "where a lot of springs are"?

I only know that *yes- is the source of Germanic *jesana which actually meant "to ferment". The root may have been a word for "boil" or something.

Well, the same semantic shift apparently occurred in Croatian. The word "vrelo" means "spring", but it would literally mean "what you boil with" ("vreti" is "to boil").

*eh2 is the feminine suffix, although initially it may have been a formative suffix for abstract or uncountable nouns.

Isn't is the source of both the Latin and Croatian ending -a, the plural for the neuter gender? The plural of "vrelo" is "vrela", for example. It seems likely that the suffix for the collective nouns would be reanalyzed as a regular plural suffix.

So how do you get the meaning "where a lot of springs are"?

As a collective noun from the stem *is~*ias, meaning "spring" (Illyrian apparently had an ablaut with the vowels a and u, rather than o and e, compare the city names such as "Mursa", "Marsonia" and "Mariniana", all on marshy land).

I do believe that the feminine ending -eh2 and the pl ntr -eh2 both originate from the same suffix building uncountable or abstract nouns. But the suffix had already turned into a case ending in PIE.

A noun meaning "spring" can very well derive from a verb meaning "to boil".

But is it possible in IE to derive a noun from a verb just by adding the feminine suffix -eh2 to the verbal root? I am not sure. I know instances of nouns from verbal roots just by adding the case marker -s to the root, but they also involve ablaut e>o.

In case it is legit, that would result in a word yes-eh2 just meaning "springs" though, not "where a lot of springs are".

By the way you was right that Istria was outside of the realm of the Liburnians. The ancient inhabitants of Istria may have spoken a Venetian dialect. The language of the Veneti is much better attested than the language of the Illyrians (they used a script) and very interesting.

But maybe "Liburnians" was rather a political entity than a people with a common language. Their proper names suggest that they may have consisted of speakers of Venetian and of Illyrian dialects.

I know instances of nouns from verbal roots just by adding the case marker -s to the root, but they also involve ablaut e>o.

Like I've said, Illyrian probably had an ablaut of the vowels a and u, and not e and o.
But let's assume that Iasa comes from *yoseh2. In this case, the Illyrian a-grade would correspond to PIE o-grade. Could the nouns be formed by the zero-grade and the ending -eh2 (to explain Issa and Balissa)?
Though this leaves the hydronims such as Colapis (assuming it's *kwol+*h2ep, water with meanders) difficult to explain.
Was it actually a rule in PIE that o-grade turns to zero-grade in declension of nouns (like in *mory-*mreys or *wodr-*udens)?

The language of the Veneti is much better attested than the language of the Illyrians (they used a script) and very interesting.

Yeah, I've read about it a bit. I've heard of a theory that it was actually an early Germanic language, but it doesn't make much sense to me. For example, they show a parallel with Venetic "mego" and German "mich" (as if both of them have the ending -go), but there appear to be no traces of Grimm's law beginnings (like change of p to f, which would almost certainly be visible in writing). Maybe it had some contact with Uralic languages (Hungarian has this ending -go in the accusatives of the pronouns), what do you think?

But let's assume that Iasa comes from *yoseh2. In this case, the Illyrian a-grade would correspond to PIE o-grade. Could the nouns be formed by the zero-grade and the ending -eh2 (to explain Issa and Balissa)?

I do not know of a pattern in IE to derive nouns from verbal roots by zero-grade + -eh2.

Was it actually a rule in PIE that o-grade turns to zero-grade in declension of nouns (like in *mory-*mreys or *wodr-*udens)?

It is typical for root nouns, but not for thematic nouns or nouns on -eh2.

Quote

The language of the Veneti is much better attested than the language of the Illyrians (they used a script) and very interesting.

Yeah, I've read about it a bit. I've heard of a theory that it was actually an early Germanic language, but it doesn't make much sense to me. For example, they show a parallel with Venetic "mego" and German "mich" (as if both of them have the ending -go), but there appear to be no traces of Grimm's law beginnings (like change of p to f, which would almost certainly be visible in writing). Maybe it had some contact with Uralic languages (Hungarian has this ending -go in the accusatives of the pronouns), what do you think?

No, the Venetic mego is obviously derived from me=ego, an invention it indeed shares with Germanic. It is extremely far-fetched to compare it to Hungarian, also I cannot find an accusative ending -go in Hungarian pronouns. And why would it even matter, Hungarian was not around at the time. Is there a Proto-Uralic accusative suffix -go for pronouns?

It is typical for root nouns, but not for thematic nouns or nouns on -eh2.

Wouldn't a noun *yos, derived from *yes, be a root noun?

No, the Venetic mego is obviously derived from me=ego, an invention it indeed shares with Germanic. It is extremely far-fetched to compare it to Hungarian, also I cannot find an accusative ending -go in Hungarian pronouns. And why would it even matter, Hungarian was not around at the time. Is there a Proto-Uralic accusative suffix -go for pronouns?

You are probably right. I haven't looked into it very much. Aren't the Hungarian pronouns "me" and "you" "engo" and "tego"?

Can Venetic be used to explain the "Liburnian" toponym Alvona as *h2elbh-on (near the hill)? I think I've read that *bh sometimes turned to v in Venetic, as in its word for "brother".

Quote

It is typical for root nouns, but not for thematic nouns or nouns on -eh2.

Wouldn't a noun *yos, derived from *yes, be a root noun?

yos- would be a root noun. In case it was proterostatic it could form a gen isens. If it was acrostatic like dom-, "house", it would have gen sg yes.

yes-eh2 though (and I do think now that such a form should actually be no problem) would not be a root noun, the stem would not change throughout the paradigm.

Quote

No, the Venetic mego is obviously derived from me=ego, an invention it indeed shares with Germanic. It is extremely far-fetched to compare it to Hungarian, also I cannot find an accusative ending -go in Hungarian pronouns. And why would it even matter, Hungarian was not around at the time. Is there a Proto-Uralic accusative suffix -go for pronouns?

You are probably right. I haven't looked into it very much. Aren't the Hungarian pronouns "me" and "you" "engo" and "tego"?

No, the forms are "engem" and "teged". So you have a -g- at least, but those forms are a Hungarian peculiarity, not found in other Uralic languages.

Can Venetic be used to explain the "Liburnian" toponym Alvona as *h2elbh-on (near the hill)? I think I've read that *bh sometimes turned to v in Venetic, as in its word for "brother".

It turned into f  word-initially.

I do not think Illyrian or Liburnian had postpositions. Also you may consider h2el-/al- "to grow". h2el-u would be a nice u-stem that could mean "herb" or something.

yes-eh2 though (and I do think now that such a form should actually be no problem) would not be a root noun, the stem would not change throughout the paradigm.

I don't know now. There isn't much literature about PIE word formation on-line, is there? I somehow can't resist the temptation to suppose that Iasa had originally an o-vocalism. Like, Marsonia and Mariniana almost certainly come from *mory (in the sense "marshland").

No, the forms are "engem" and "teged". So you have a -g- at least, but those forms are a Hungarian peculiarity, not found in other Uralic languages.

OK, my mistake again. Nevertheless, if German "mich" comes from *me-ego, how do you explain "dich"?

It turned into f  word-initially.

Well, its word for brother starts with a v. Maybe the rule was something like: bh was deaspirated between vowels, and turned to v otherwise.

I do not think Illyrian or Liburnian had postpositions.

I meant the suffix -h3onh2-. Sorry, I didn't know it was reconstructed like that in the Laryngeal theory.

Also you may consider h2el-/al- "to grow". h2el-u would be a nice u-stem that could mean "herb" or something.

Sounds good. "Požeška gora" mountain was called "Alma" (probably meaning "fertile") in antiquity. Descriptive toponyms though are way more frequent than ones named after plants, and *h2elbh is relatively common in toponyms (Alps, Albania...).

Quote

It turned into f  word-initially.

Well, its word for brother starts with a v. Maybe the rule was something like: bh was deaspirated between vowels, and turned to v otherwise.

The word for brother starts with the signs for "vh". The rendering of Latin names and loanwords suggest that this combination was pronounced as "f" (maybe bi-labial). Moreover, since the h-sound went lost in Venetic, the double-sign was later often reduced to "h". So "vhraterei" or (unattested)*"hraterei" was actually "fraterei"

Quote

Also you may consider h2el-/al- "to grow". h2el-u would be a nice u-stem that could mean "herb" or something.

Sounds good. "Požeška gora" mountain was called "Alma" (probably meaning "fertile") in antiquity. Descriptive toponyms though are way more frequent than ones named after plants, and *h2elbh is relatively common in toponyms (Alps, Albania...).

We can "alu" as well give the meaning "meaddow" or "field", it is just a shot into the dark. As for h2elbh, I take it PIE *bh did not turn into "w" in Illyrian? In Venetic it did not.

Nevertheless, if German "mich" comes from *me-ego, how do you explain "dich"?

In Proto-Germanic it is ek, "I", acc. mek and ţu, "you", acc. ţek. The latter cannot be explained etymologically, It is probably just an imitation of the 1st person ending.

Do you have some literature on-line you think might help me with those things?
Anyway, thanks for helping me recognize the fallacies I was making. I probably don't need much more of your help.
I must say this forum is way better for discussing linguistics than the Croatian forums about linguistics are. Perhaps it's because there are only two people here who try to discuss it, and not tens of people who write irrelevant nonsense. And perhaps it's also because most of the people on the Croatian forums about linguistics are linguistic purists (people trying to convince others with pseudoscience they don't know how to speak their own language).

I've tried to understand the PIE grammar by translating some texts into PIE. How would you translate "Pater Noster" into PIE? I would do it like this:
ph2ter nos, kwis dyewi h1esi!
dheh1to h1noh3mn tebhye.
h1sieh1s h3regjs.
bhuh2ih1end kwih2 tuh2 welh1si.
nebhesu h1ereykwe.
kwih2 nos ne h1senti dhogwhey tosmi dheh3dhi. (Proto-Indo-European didn't have a word for bread, I've tried to translate this line as: "Give us what we need for today.")
bheh2gdhikwe leykwoneh2 nos,
kwom weykwe bheh2gmos leykwetrmos nos.
sentme ne drtomos,
solh2eskwe nsme trnomos.

I've tried to understand the PIE grammar by translating some texts into PIE. How would you translate "Pater Noster" into PIE?

Why would I do that? But it has been done a couple of times, for example:



This transcription is a phonological interpretation of the merely etymological transcription.

He choses the lok. pl dyeusu instead of lok sg. That is very sensitive, because the sg would maybe point to the entity "heaven" rather than to the location "heaven". Though in the 4th line he seems to forget that. Also the form should be diwsu, not dyeusu with accent on -su, because it is a hystero-kinetic root. The right form for the lok sg by the way is diwi, not dyewi, but it is not really sure if the Proto-Indo-Europeans knew that  .

What is dheh1to h1noh3mn tebhye?  If you change tebhye to tebhey or toy, it may mean "he shall give a name to you".

h1sieh1s h3regjs?

bhuh2ih1end kwih2 tuh2 welh1si, "the things that you want may become/may appear"? No, that's not good.

nebhesu h1ereykwe? Nebhesu is "in the clouds". Dyewi was better.

That is very sensitive, because the sg would maybe point to the entity "heaven" rather than to the location "heaven".

I don't understand.

The right form for the lok sg by the way is diwi, not dyewi, but it is not really sure if the Proto-Indo-Europeans knew that.

On Wiktionary it's written that the correct forms are *dyew and *dyewi.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dyḗws

What is dheh1to h1noh3mn tebhye?

"Let your name be celebrated." dheh1 is said to be the source of the Latin words "festum" and "fanum" and of the Greek word "theos".

h1sieh1s h3regjs?

"Be a king"? Or is there a PIE word for "kingdom"?

No, that's not good.

Why not? Isn't that what "Your will be done!" means? Is there a PIE word for "will"?

Nebhesu is "in the clouds".

Yeah, you are right.

Quote

That is very sensitive, because the sg would maybe point to the entity "heaven" rather than to the location "heaven".

I don't understand.

Dyews was in a way already "God", so I am not sure if it could be used as a place. The plural works here as an objectification.

Quote

The right form for the lok sg by the way is diwi, not dyewi, but it is not really sure if the Proto-Indo-Europeans knew that.

On Wiktionary it's written that the correct forms are *dyew and *dyewi.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dyḗws

In fact it is hard to say if loc sg was a strong or a weak casus. Look at the Sanskrit on the same wikipedia page:

दिवि (diví) / द्यवि (dyávi, loc.sg.). The first comes from diwi, the second from dyewi. That's why I joked that even the PIEs themselves could not tell.

Quote

What is dheh1to h1noh3mn tebhye?

"Let your name be celebrated." dheh1 is said to be the source of the Latin words "festum" and "fanum" and of the Greek word "theos".

dheh1 does not mean celebrate in PIE. "h1noh3mn dheh1" clearly means "give a name".

Quote

h1sieh1s h3regjs?

"Be a king"? Or is there a PIE word for "kingdom"?

The version I posted has h3regyom, "kingship".

Quote

No, that's not good.

Why not? Isn't that what "Your will be done!" means? Is there a PIE word for "will"?

The posted version goes quite safe with welmenom.

Dyews was in a way already "God", so I am not sure if it could be used as a place. The plural works here as an objectification.

I think that they actually tried to translate the Latin "qui es in caelis" literally. Perhaps that doesn't sound strange in Latin. In Croatian, they translated this as "koji jesi na nebesima" ("nebesima" being the locative plural of "nebo", meaning "sky"), and that does sound strange.

dheh1 does not mean celebrate in PIE. "h1noh3mn dheh1" clearly means "give a name".

I don't really see how can the words for "feast", "feria", "temple" and "diety" be derived from a word meaning "to put". *dheh1 had to mean something like "celebrate". I thought that "to give" was *deh3.

The posted version goes quite safe with welmenom.

What does -men- mean?

I don't really see how can the words for "feast", "feria", "temple" and "diety" be derived from a word meaning "to put". *dheh1 had to mean something like "celebrate".

In German "kaputt" is a colloquial term for "broken, not functioning any more". it comes from the Latin word "caput" meaning "head". And "Gift" means "poison". It comes from Proto-Germanic "geban" meaning "to give".

So "caput" must alway have meant "broken", and "geban" obviously meant "to poison sb", because, as we know, words cannot change their meaning. Right?

I thought that "to give" was *dheh3.

Ancient IE languages rather said "to put a name (on)" than "to give a name", but the meaning of the phrase in English is "give a name".

In search for an example for that I found this wikipedia site (wiki is not bad for IE)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%81n%C3%B3mn%CC%A5

It also translates "give a name" h₁nómn̥ dʰéh₁

What does -men- mean?

It is the supposed mediopassive participle -menos. That is the well known affix -men- with theme vowel -o-.

http://ling.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/alumni%20senior%20essays/Jesse%20Storbeck.pdf

I was just Googling the Laryngeal Theory for a while and I ended up here. There seems to have been some very long and intelligent discussion on this forum. I am not willing to read it all. Can you guys just quickly summarize your arguments for and against the Laryngeal Theory? Thanks in advance.

I was just Googling the Laryngeal Theory for a while and I ended up here. There seems to have been some very long and intelligent discussion on this forum. I am not willing to read it all. Can you guys just quickly summarize your arguments for and against the Laryngeal Theory? Thanks in advance.

Read the thread, lazy noob.

Maybe I am just being efficient, and not lazy. The two people who were discussing it initially are obviously still around, so why should I bother reading the whole thread?
Have you read the whole thread? Can you summarize me what's it about?

I may be a noob to this forum, but I am not a noob to linguistics. And why would I need to have experience on a Flat Earth Society forum?