From: elmeras2000
Message: 26135
Date: 2003-09-29
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:
If Brugmann's Law is correct, then we have significant information
> from Skt which is hidden in other IE languages that collapsed
apophonic -o-
> with -o- from other sources.
Brugmann's Law *is* correct, but I think you are making it correct
ad absurdum. This has degenerated into a dispute of rhetorics: if
the way the law was first formulated is defended at all costs as the
way it should be worded even in the present state of our knowledge,
then something mighty interesting stuff follows. Sure it does, but
not if you rephrase the law so as to cover only the insights we
really have.
Jens