Talk:Lachmann's law

dispute about dispute?

Someone wrote:

Dispute on Lachmann's law is a consequence of not gaining insight into that mechanism by lots of linguists.

I find this statement highly questionable, and also a clear value judgment, which should not be here. I would rather say that many linguists dispute that phonological laws *can* operate on deep structure at all. Benwing (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, as there is likely no difference between linguists that generally dispute the operation of phonological laws on deep structure, and those that dispute the formulation of Lachmann's law in this particular case. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

‘Sound law’

Why nothing about the brilliant (and handbook standard) morphological explanation? Guldrelokk (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original publication?

Article currently states:

Karl Lachmann who first formulated it sometime in the middle of the 19th century

... but cites no source earlier than 1965. Can we get something on when/where/how the law was first published? --Iustinus (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]