Re: Kuiper disses Fortunov

No one has any comments about this?

I thought Fortunatov was unimpeachable.

--- In cybalist@..., "michael_donne" <michael_donne@...> wrote:
> F B J Kuiper says: "at least for those scholars who are agreed on
> the untenability of Fortunatov's Law (which tried to account for
Skt.
> t.. d., n. by tracing them back to IE lt, ln) and the exaggerations
> of the theory of the occurance of Prakritisms in the Rigveda"
> --- Studia Indologica, Fs. fuer W. Kirfal, 1955; p 137-8
>
> Is he allowed to say this? Won't they revoke his linguist's license
> or something?
>
> Seriously, is there even a significant minority of linguists who
> doubt Fortunov's Law? What is their rationale?