Re: [tied] IIr 2nd Palatalisation (was: PIE voiceless aspirates)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>

> To assert, as David did - repeatedly - that PIE *k^[(h)] results in Old
> Indian <c> is just flat out wrong; and he withdrew from the

discussion, it

> appears to me, in lieu of just honestly admitting his false

characterization

> of the data, the falsity of which can be immediately determined by

anyone

> with an IE dictionary.

Perhaps I've missed it, but where did he make that claim?