This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Beginning in 1897, Brugmann began publishing a revision and expansion of his portion of the "Grundriss". The resulting second edition, concluded in 1916, still constitutes the single most authoritative work on Indo-European linguistics.
No way. Even it was excellent in the times in which Brugmann wrote it, the 'Grundriss' is obviously completely outdated today. It is not Brugmann's fault, actually; he had no idea about Hittite, Tocharian, Mycenaean Greek etc. because the languages were not known yet. He did not know the notion of a 'phoneme'. He did not know about the laryngeals, accent shifts in Greek, and thousands of other things that have been discovered / worked out since then. The 'Grundriss' is a valuable work as far as the history of IE linguistics is concerned, and - as noted by Beekes in his 'Introduction...', p. 292 - 'it is almost always rewarding to study the great scholars of the past, like (...) Brugmann (...)', but it does not mean that the 'Grundriss' is still a valid handbook today. Far from that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.178.233 (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
