>> >Brugmann/Pokorny bracket the r of *p&té:(r) and *k^uo:(n)Suggesting that the form without r or n could be original. A reconstruction
>> That seems to me a classic case of the prioritising of Sanskrit
>What prioritising? Bracketing its reflex, or mentioning it at all?
>> Sandhi variation in IE is at least plausible, even if I don'tHow sweet that you find my opinion interesting. The arguments for it are
>Well, how interesting - any arguments pertinent to the matter?
>> the existence of the -r in the nominative inNo they don't. They mean that we must reconstruct forms without the final r
>> IE, at least at a morphophonemic level.
>that is what the reconstructions you are criticising mean.
> independent and objective reasoning over the factsthe same
>which were also at the disposal [of Brugmann and Pokorny] lead us to draw
>conclusion today as they did then.No it doesn't. We do not reconstruct p&te: as the nominative, nor k'uo:.