Re: [tied] Re: Grimm's Law is about to expire (Collinge 1985, p. 26

From: Mate Kapović
Message: 47864
Date: 2007-03-15

M. Kelkar wrote:

> "The fact that deaspiration in Greek took place after the change of
> Proto-Indo-European *bʰ, dʰ, gʰ to /pʰ, tʰ,
> kʰ/, and the fact that no
> other Indo-European languages have Grassmann's law, show that
> Grassmann's law developed independently in Greek and Sanskrit; it was
> not inherited from PIE."
>
> Why independently? I would just put Greek and Sanskrit in one family.

Because you're an ignorant. Please, would you be so kind to learn the
basics of IE linguistics (and comparative linguistics in general) before
bothering us with your stupid "ideas".

> "http://ablauttime.blogspot.com/2004/10/those-old-ie-sound-laws.html
>
> "I've spent the better part of the last two days (or so it seems)
> either explaining to students how Grassman's Law can possible explain
> exceptions to Grimm's law when it didn't even occur in Germanic or
> trying to convince them that there is some reason that they should
> learn what Grimm's Law, Verner's Law, Grassman's Law, and the Great
> English Vowel Shift are. It isn't as easy as you might think.
> Undergraduate students can be stubborn debaters, particularly when
> testable material is at stake.
>
> What I have told them, more listlessly than would be ideal, is that a
> knowledge of these sound changes is part of the shared intellectual
> tradition of historical linguistics and that they're also good
> examples of particular kinds of sound changes. They didn't seem
> convinced."
>
> And I am not convinced either. If one needs two more laws to explain
> exceptions to an earlier law then its best to get rid of all three and
> replace them with the ancient Indian tradition.

Yeah, Sanskrit is Proto-World (or Romanian alternatively :-))...

Mate