Re: [tied] Re: Caland [was -m (-n)?]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:07:36 +0100 (MET), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>> But then it's hard to explain why Tocharian replaced _all_ u-stem
>> adjectives by ró-adjectives.  I mean, what possible connection could
>> there
>> be, in the mind of a post-V/R-rule Indoeuropean, between adjectives in -ú
>> and adjectives in -ró?  Can a mere 10% relict forms keep such a
>> phonologically non-obvious historical connection alive synchronically?
>
>You seem to forget about all the many ro-adjectives that were in keeping
>with the rule. That raises the percentage to a lot more than ten.

You haven't understood what I meant.

>Lithuanian has done the opposite: *dhub-ró- -> dubùs, so there must have
>been an association.

Ok. What was it?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...