You seem to have disagreed with a different part of that comment but you never seemed to say anything about the part addressing etymological spelling:Yes, and I disagreed with it
“Strictly speaking you are right that etymological spelling implies that scribal schools must have existed before and after the loss of the glottal stop. However, I was including analogical spelling under the umbrella of etymological spelling. That is if the glottal stop persisted in the plural, then the question of when the Canaanite shift happened becomes disconnected from the alef in this case.”
I never said it's irrelevant. In fact I've already repeated twice the part that I said about it:and instead of answering directly you evaded by talking about the second shift, which you now say is irrelevant.
“Anyway, the point is not that this second shift presents any direct evidence of how the first shift happened, but rather it presents a very plausible possibility for how the first shift happened.”
That is, the relevance of the second shift is as a clearer example of how such a shift could unfold. Please reread the full comment to understand better.
If you have any trouble understanding these words, please let me know.
If you can't be bothered to read my words carefully, it does not motivate me to type more of them.Can you please address the question directly instead of talking about what you said earlier?