Re: [tied] Re: On the ordering of some PIE rules

On 2007-06-06 17:49, tgpedersen wrote:

> OK, but that's not what I proposed.

No, but that's what you asked:

>> On 2007-06-06 10:51, tgpedersen wrote:
>>
>>> How would you state the rule so that the lack of spirantization
>>> before stops is not an exception to Grimm?

I've only shown that it IS possible to formulate the whole thing as an
exceptionless change operating after GL.

Piotr