On Lehmann and Neogrammarians

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Leo and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: <CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 3:46 PM

<snip>

> But if one studies his explanations critically, it turns out that most of
> them are either wrong or else no better than other available explanations
> which do not involve laryngeals.  I'll spare you the details, but I've
> reconsidered and corrected several of his proposals in some articles
> published between 1977 and 1983.  (I also accepted some of his proposals
> about which I now have grave doubts.)  The book is, I'm afraid, a mess -- but
> an original, valuable, and highly stimulating mess.  Kind of like Chomsky's
> _Syntactic Structures_.  (I wonder if there's even one word in that book that
> Chomsky would now accept?  No matter; he stimulated us, and sometimes that's
> the only thing that matters.  So too with Lehmann's work.)

"An original, valuable, and highly stimulating mess"? I think even Lehmann
would be delighted with such a characterization. But, stubborn as I am, I
would prefer "olio".

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)