Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

>> >Brugmann/Pokorny bracket the r of *p&té:(r) and *k^uo:(n)
>> That seems to me a classic case of the prioritising of Sanskrit
>What prioritising? Bracketing its reflex, or mentioning it at all?

Suggesting that the form without r or n could be original. A reconstruction
is not the place to show the vagaries of a particular dialect. If PIE
*p&ter is reconstructed with -r, it must not be shown as p&te: That would
be wrong reconstruction - which is what Brugmann and Pokorny both offer
here, on the basis of a prioritising of Sanksrit forms.

>> Sandhi variation in IE is at least plausible, even if I don't
>>believe it,
>Well, how interesting - any arguments pertinent to the matter?

How sweet that you find my opinion interesting. The arguments for it are
currently being thrashed around on this list. I see no reason to assume
anything for PIE other than *p&te:r, k'uo:n, but I continue to follow the
debate.

>> the existence of the -r in the nominative in
>> IE, at least at a morphophonemic level.
>that is what the reconstructions you are criticising mean.

No they don't. They mean that we must reconstruct forms without the final r
or n. And that is what I am at the moment rejecting, until you or seomone
else proves that these final-less forms actually are more likely.

> independent and objective reasoning over the facts
>which were also at the disposal [of Brugmann and Pokorny] lead us to draw

the same

>conclusion today as they did then.

No it doesn't. We do not reconstruct p&te: as the nominative, nor k'uo:.

Peter