On 6/17/2022 10:11 AM, De'vID wrote:
> I don't really see it as a new rule. I think it's more like a rule he
> has had in mind for a long time, and only partially explained previously.
>
> What's an example of something that was wrong before but which is now
> right?
You're taking this as Okrand having thought all this out ahead of time
and just not explaining it very well. I don't believe it.
I don't believe that he thought it through meticulously from the beginning, either. I think it's more likely that he played rather fast and loose with verb prefixes in sentences like {tIqwIj Sa'angnIS} because he saw the English "I must show you" and looked up "I-you" {Sa-}, and that after doing this several times a pattern emerged which could be explained by the "prefix trick" retroactively.
I think he
didn't think things out so meticulously before, and now he's
retrofitting an explanation that covers all the apparent contradictions
and exceptions we've talked about over the years and which you showed to
him. Kudos to him for finding an explanation that appears to work for
everything, and I have no doubt that the original explanation of the
prefix trick WAS simplified in the act of writing it, but I don't for a
moment think this is the rule he was following all along. I think it
took someone who had all the previous information coordinated for him to
get him to finally piece it all together.