[tied] Re: Grimm ’s Law fact or myth: Gessman (1990)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

> At 5:06:45 PM on Wednesday, May 7, 2008, Richard Wordingham
> wrote:

> > His [Gesman's] 'demolition' argument seems to be that *t > /þ/ cannot
> > have induced *d > /t/ because after the first stage [t]
> > survived in clusters such as /st/, /ft/ and /xt/. So, pray
> > tell me, how did the High German consonant shift happen?
> > (Pretty much the same clusters survive from Proto-Germanic
> > in Old High German, except that /st/ has generally become
> > /St/.)
>
> It isn't entirely clear *what* his argument is, because
> Kelkar didn't copy the whole article. That's why I bounced
> his post the last time he tried, and he still hasn't fixed
> it.

Gessman proposes an alternative set of changes to account for the
observed facts. That does not disprove the traditional
interpretation, so I think Mayuresh originally copied enough for us to
get the drift. So, my original challenge to Mayuresh stands - why is
the traditional interpretation as a changes in the development of PIE
to Proto-Germanic fundamentally impossible whereas the High German
consonant shift isn't?

Richard.