> My opinion is that Mr. Ramsusen's claim is very sceintific one andYou touched the point where it seems something is not very clear and
> his attitude that the reflex of *s- is to be gj-, and that /j-/ is
> reduced form, for me, is some kind of genius penetration on the heart
> of the problem (cf. also bilabial extended root *sal-b- and Alb. i
> gjelbtë 'salted' and <i njelmtë> 'id.', besied many dialectal forms
> like: njoh 'to know' and ngjoh 'id.', <njeh> 'to count' and
> <ngjeh> 'id.' etc.).
> So, nominative <ajo> 'she' is truely derived from *au-saH2> au-sa:> a
> (g)jo, where *au-3 (Pokorny) is adverb 'away' that form binary
> opposition with *ko(m) > kë-, Lat. co- 'beside, near', that forms as
> first element demonstrative pronoun kjo 'this' < *ko(m)-saH2> ko-
> sa:>kë(g)jo. Gen.-Dat.-Abl. (a)saj are derived from basic pronominal
> stem *so. But acc. atë 'her, his' is derived from *au-tom > atâ: >
> The binary opposition *au- vs. *ko(m)- was much better preserved in
> adverbs: <aty> 'there' and <këtu> 'here'.
> Also <jonë> 'our' < *saH2 + *nos is very logical derivation.
> The plural forms <ata/ato> they are derived from pronominal stem *to-.
> Only doubt about Alb. demonstrative pronouns I have regarding nom.sg.
> masc. <ai> 'he' and <ky/ki>, which I doubt are formed: *au-i > ai and
> *ko(m)-i>ki or *ku(m)-i > kui >ky