--- In cybalist@..., Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:
>These must have been formed in opposition to the
> endstressed forms of the mobile type, z^iemóms (older -omùs)
...
Why do you put it as -omùs? All my sources (eg., Kazlauskas' and
Zinkevic^ius' historical grammars of Lithuanian) consistently
postulate -ómus (as well as -àmus for *o-stems, -ìmus for *i-stems
and -ùmus for *u-stems). Don't Dauks^a's _Postilla catholicka_ and
19th c. dialects of Le:nas district point to the penultimate sress?
Sergei