Re: EUQUS etc.

Date: Tue Apr 30 1996 - 13:43:33 EDT

I'd like to comment on three issues, but three separate messages seems un-
necessary, while one would confuse threads; so I'll combine two here and
apologize for a possible breach of etiquette.
First comment includes a request to the list owner: I am really annoyed by
the spamming (magazine ads to be precise) that keeps hitting this list and
no doubt many others (including b-hebrew). The person with the nerve to take
credit for it (or at least the latest one) is a Susan Zanzer; in effect, she
defecates on our discussions and wants to be sure that we all see who did it.
In case we miss her drivel the first time, she repeats it. Sorry to be so
unkind, Ms. Zanzer, but as I say, I'm really annoyed at your behavior, and
you can rest assured (if you're reading this) that I will NEVER buy anything
from you and yours. On my system (I don't know about the rest of the group)
I have to scroll through all messages to see them all, and when I see an ad
listed, I sometimes just give up and delete the whole digest rather than
suffer through the spam. My request to the list owner is obvious: that, if
possible, you censor all this spoiled meat (I fear that it is not possible,
since the attacks seem to be unrelenting on all the victimized lists).
Now for EUQUS. This is a more interesting problem than I would ever have
supposed, and I've enjoyed reading the discussions (though I haven't seen
all of them). I have not read Munro and have not otherwise considered the
movable sigma idea, but the notion of a nominative with a movable sigma
seems bizarre and I would vote down that alternative. As to the two-forms
idea (masc and neut), it makes sense for the neuter to be adverbial. Another
possible explanation for the masculine (forgive me if this has already been
said) is that it implies the presence of a common masculine noun, in this
case probably CRONOS or KAIROS. This is quite common, as in the case of
hUSTERAIAi for hUSTERAIAi hHMERAi. However, I am still puzzeled by the nom-
inative case. Anyway, if a common noun for time is implied with EUQUS then
is it not actually adverbial, and this would also explain the masculine
gender. Again forgive me if this has already been suggested; and if I must
put up with spamming, I'll try to muddle through so I don't miss important

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:41 EDT