Greek question

[manaster at umich.edu]

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

> I am under the impression that though Kurylowicz and others have been
> interested in extending the "law" back to PIE times, this has not met
> general acceptance but perhaps I am not privy to the latest information.

> If  *ne(u)k(h)-to- had already become compounded in PIE, Bartholomae's Law
> would not have come into play, would it?

Hey, we do agree about something.  The BL issue is not closed
by any means.  Sihler in his book argues that it had to be
PIE because he can see no other way to explain the
variation between *-tlo- and *-dhlo- instrument derivational
suffixes.  But if I am not mistaken the Copenhagen school
has a better theory for this than BL (Jens, Benedicte, anybody?).

AMR