Re: [tied] IE numbers

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 01:54:24, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
>Miguel:
>>In view of PIE *yekWr(t) (**l^epWnt-), I would suggest a PN
>>reconstruction *lipunt- or *liput-n-.
>
>This reconstruction is flawed since it lacks linguistic rigor
>such as... oh I dunno... maybe RATIONAL SOUND RULES?

*lipunt-

> *lyapwant [loss of short *i > (y)a and *u > (w)a]
> *l^epw&nt [stressed *a > e, unstressed *a > & > 0]
> *l^ekwnt [*pW > *kW]
> *l^ekwrt [-n(t) > -r(t)]
> *yekwr(t) [*l^- > *y-, sporadic loss of -t]

-nt can come from -tn (cf. the metathesis resulting in n-infix verbs).