...been working all day. Here is the last paragraph I just wrote. very intellectual: 
Hina is the ancestor of na. It was primarily used as a complementizer. In Classical Greek mood was a function of verbal morphology, as morphology was confounded, e.g. the homophony of the aorist subjunctive and the future indicative, levelling ensued and the various affixes lost their meaning. Hina itself underwent a stress shift, being reduced to na and over time its application widened, so that for example there are cases of it occurring in matrix clauses in the post classical period, which foreshadows it status as a stand alone particle without an accompanying complementizer. Interesting as this may be, the crucial question remains as to whether an upwards reanalysis took place in the case of this particle. Hina introduced embedded clauses which clearly points to it being in the C system. Na is also found within the C system. If this is in fact the case, how then can the changes that took place be seen as upwards reanalysis? If mood in Classical Greek was realised primarily by means of verbal inflection/agreement and with levelling there was a loss of that agreement, then one can safely argue that mood was realised in the T domain. If over time this function was taken over by na, then it stands to reason that mood was reanalysed as being in the C domain. Mood features become lexicalised within a higher domain, namely C and the subjunctive mood is thenceforth realised in a free standing morpheme. In this way it can be argued that there was reanalysis of mood from T to C; upwards reanalysis.
Wow! I'm sure it took some effort to compose that, but I feel sorry for whoever has to try learn and possibly, regurgitate that later in some kind of situation like an exam. Is that linguistics?
I personally think that the intellectual content in say, a body of text, is more about the overall message / information contained in it, rather than the way it is conveyed, especially if said way is purposely made difficult to read and comprehend due to it's challenging sentence construction and use of complicated words and phrases where simpler ones would suffice.
Which is why I think the witty Peter McGough is a better writer than the less gifted but way more pretentious Julian Schmidt in FLEX.
Did I mention good effort on your part?
