Re: [tied] Re: PIE Ablaut

----- Original Message -----
From: "P&G" <G&P@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE Ablaut


> > the requirement that the *o only be from Ablaut was not part of
> > Brugmann's
> > original formulation.
> > And that is not the only tweak that the "Law" needed in order to "look
> > like" it had some validity.
>
> Quite a few of the "laws" had to be tweaked before they achieved
> acceptance
> (including Verner, I believe!). That doesn't make them invalid.
>
> Peter

***
Patrick:

But that certainly means they should not be called by the name of the
proposers of the originally faulty formulations.

And adding the additional qualification of adjacency to nasals and rhotics
is just another indication of the bankruptcy of the original proposal.

Consider, Peter, that any non-conforming form can be excepted by the mere
proposal of *H3, whether justified or not. With that "tweak", the original
proposal cannot be falsified. This makes it very unacceptable in my eyes.

***