From: Glen Gordon
Message: 17334
Date: 2003-01-02
>>But what shows that *paxwr should be analysed as *pax-wr over *paxw-r?Whoa. Where did *-ho:n come from? I thought we were talking about *-r
>
>I could imagine a word meaning "the little one" with the Hoffmann suffix
>(*-Ho:n), but heteroclisis would be abnormal in such a formation.