Re: [tied] Re: etruscan

From: João Simões Lopes Filho
Message: 5488
Date: 2001-01-14

----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Gwinn <sonno3@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: etruscan


(...)
> is realized that if Cymry was genuinely ancient, we should expect the
modern
> form to be *Cyfry instead (following the rule that *kom- becomes ko-
> before -m-).

Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology points cymry < *com-brogi <
*com-mrog-;
so, m < mb, right?