>See that is the problem here.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
> > The reason I (Thundy) am skeptical of many proto-Indo-European roots
> > based on Grimm's law is that most Indo-Europeanist apply Grimm's law
> > universally and claim that there is no exception to it. For the Old
> > English habban, dictionaries give *kap as the root and ignore the
> > Latin habere as cognate, because Grimm's Law does not allow for any
> > exception! Then we have the classic cases of Sanskrit pibati, of the
> > Greek pachus versus the Sanskrit bahu, and the Latin bibit versus the
> > Praenstine pipafo (Collinge 259-65). By postulating laryngeals we can
> > get around these problems, as scholars have done.
> We don't need any laryngeals to explain the consonants of Greek
> _pa:khus_ / _pe:khus_, Sanskrit _ba:hu_ and English _bough_. It looks
> like a straightforward case of Grassmann's Law to me.
> What might be helpful is to collect together the cases of inconsistent
> voicing between IE families. However, please leave out the examples
> that can be explained by Grassman's law -
> serve no useful purpose.
> > even though Grimm's law is about to expire
> > (Collinge 267) with the radical revision of the proto-Indo-European
> > obstruent system by the glottalicists Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, Hopper and
> > Bromhard.
> The other Nostratic camp (e.g. Shevoroshkin) is currently
> reconstructing the PIE, Altaic and Nostratic stop system as having the
> phonations [th] (PIE *t), [t] (PIE *d) and [d] (PIE *dH). The old
> (Indocentric?) reconstruction has a lot of life left in it.
> As Peter Gray said, it is important to separate the two aspects of
> Grimm's law - the correspondence and the reconstruction. I think
> everyone realises that reconstructing the precise phonetic reality is
> , which is why I like to think of the 'traditional' reconstruction as
> an orthography.
> > Since every language comprises dialects, consistent voicing
> > of consonants is not necessarily an infallible criterion for
> > distinguishing dialects or language familiesin American English, for
> > instance, the voicing of /s/ in words like greasy is at best a
> > variable dialectical or ideolectal feature.
> This is not a particularly good example. The variation in _greasy_
> simply results from the tension between regular sound change (yielding
> /z/) and analogy (restoring /s/ from _grease_). Compare _lousy_,
> whose semantic distancing from _louse_ helps preserve the /z/ in the
> adjective. He'd've done better to pick on Romance examples like the
> English cognates _gaol_ and _cage_ - a threefold development from
> Latin _cavea_! (The first form is a diminutive.)