From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 16034
Date: 2002-10-08
>On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:I'm sorry, I don't follow...
>
>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:03:23 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
>> <jer@...> wrote:
>>
>> > The working of Saussure's Law is quite shallow, but not absolutely
>> >automatic on the surface, cf. esp. the plural cases dat. ran~koms, ins.
>> >ran~komis, loc. ran~kose. These must have been formed in opposition to
>> the
>> >endstressed forms of the mobile type, z^iemóms (older -omùs), z^iemomìs,
>> >z^iemosè.
>>
>> Hmm. Isn't that simply because Saussure's Law doesn't operate across
>> _two_
>> syllables?
>
>No, the type válgyti is opposed to darýti (acute on y, in case it doesn't
>show at your end), so why should ran~komis be barred from becoming
>+rankómis except by analogy?