[tied] Re: Lexicon of Proto-Indo-European morphological roots

What is meant by "Brugmannian" in regards to reconstruction, exactly?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-03-30 19:20, cbmibm wrote:
> > Which PIE morphological treatise is most ever comprehensive from
these
> > four ones listed below:
> >
> > James P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams - "The Oxford Introduction to
Proto-
> > Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World"
> >
> > Robert S. P. Beekes - "Comparative Indo-European Linguistics"
> > (Glottalic School)
> >
> > Michael Meier-Brügger "Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft"
> >
> > Karl Brugmann, Berthold Delbrück - "Grundriß der vergleichenden
> > Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen"
>
> The _Grundriß_ has the most detailed description but is very much
out of
> date (for one thing, the Anatolian and Tocharian branches had not
yet
> been incorporated, and the reconstruction is -- well -- Brugmannian
> :-)). Meier-Brügger's book is worth having but gives only a bird's-
eye
> view of PIE morphology. There's a pretty long chapter on PIE in Don
> Ringe's _From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic_ (OUP, 2006);
this
> particular chapter is available online as a PDF:
>
> http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-928413-X.pdf
>
> Just a little idiosyncratic, but then what isn't. Inflectional
> morphology covered rather nicely.
>
> Piotr
>