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

At 3:36:19 PM on Thursday, May 8, 2008, Richard Wordingham
wrote:

> --- 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/. [...]

>> 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.

I don't. I expect to see enough to know just what is being
proposed (and just how ... eccentric ... the proposer is),
and my recollection is that what was copied broke off too
soon. If Kelkar is going to inflict on us the results of
academic dumpster-diving, the least he can do is identify
the source, keep *all* of the relevant text, and delete the
irrelevant material.

> 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?

It would be mildly interesting to have *Gessman's* answer.

Brian