Re: Grimm's Law is about to expire (Collinge 1985, p. 267, Thundy 1

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "etherman23" <etherman23@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Thank you Dr. Wordingham for these detailed examples. The following
> > > are real words:
> > >
> > > Skt _bandHati_, Greek _pentHeros_, English _bind_
> > >
> > > Great! There are laws needed to explain why the b and p are

going back

> > > and forth. But the English word bind (or an earlier OE word) is not
> > > attested till 3000 years later. So why must the proto language be
> > > reconstructed to accomodate all three?
> >
> > They aren't going back and forth.
>
> Does the chronology of attestation make a difference? b and dh in
> Sanskrit came first, p and th in Greek came second and b and d in
> Germanic came third.
>
> So PIE should have *b, *dh; *b, *dh> p, th in Greek and *b, *dh> b, d
> in Germanic. So the family tree would be PIE--->Sanskrit--->branching
> off into Greek and Germanic.

How would you derive Greek and German vowels from Sanskrit <a>? Their
morphology? Personally I would support a Greco-Armenio-Indo-Iranian
dialect subgroup but it probably wouldn't have differed much from PIE
(a common innovation would be the augment in verbs). But Armenian and
Greek would have split pretty early on.