Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:

> >Then why does Brugmann bracket the r of *p&té:(r) and *k^uo:(n)?

And

> >why does Pokorny do the same?
>
> That seems to me a classic case of the prioritising of Sanskrit

over other

> IE dialects. If Brugmann were alive today, would he have written

that

> form?

What prioritising? Bracketing its reflex, or mentioning it at all?

> Sandhi variation in IE is at least plausible, even if I don't

believe it,

Well, how interesting - any arguments pertinent to the matter?

> but I doubt if anyone disputes the existence of the -r in the

nominative in

> IE, at least at a morphophonemic level.

Exactly that is what the reconstructions you are criticising mean.

> So a reliance on Brugmann and Pokorny may be inappropriate here.

Maybe not, but independent and objective reasoning over the facts
which were also at their disposal lead us to draw the same
conclusion today as they did then.

Jens