>the picture painted in _The Laws of Indo-European_ does not seem to support
>your certainty.
We need to read The Laws of IE with a critical eye. It supports no
certainty on any of its "laws"!
That does not mean that they are all wrong. It merely means that Collinge
is a little heavy-handed in his raising of argument and counter-argument, to
the point that the nub of the law regularly gets lost among the disputed
detail.
Collinge is right to raise caveats about the so-called "laws", but we are
wrong to use these caveats as excuses to reject the laws entirely.
Peter