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

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 41952
Date: 2005-11-09

----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: 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?

***
Patrick:

He may not have made that claim.

See my last posting and his upcoming response.

***