Torsten,
I'm strongly against such paper linguistics (quite apart from the fact that I reject the glottalic solution except as a possible model of pre-PIE phonology). If you claim that the effect of Verner's Law was the voicing of stops, you immediately lose an important generalisation: VL applies to *s as well. If we assume that the input was *f, *s, *รพ, *x, *xW, we get an accentually conditioned rule of intersonorant fricative voicing. There is absolutely no need to complicate this simple rule. You apparently would like to do so in order to leave an escape gate for your "Tungri = Thuringi" idea, but that's a poor justification from anyone else's point of view.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:56 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Germanic Scythians?
T: Not quite certain if we follow the glottalist formulation. Thus,
instead of starting with
k, g, gh etc
we start with
k, k', g
and Grimms law, instead of
k, g, gh > x, k, g
becomes
k, k', g > kh, k, g > x, k, g
then Verner's law, which remains as before (using the implicit
assumption that it should change only one feature of the phoneme),
can be used before Grimm; ...