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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:21:17 +0000, elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:

>I am sure mobility is secondary in some cases, so *you* may be on to
>something very important here. I assume secondary mobility at least
>for *pó:d-s, *ped-ós (old pattern retained in *dó:m-, *dém-s and
>*nókWt-s, *nékWt-s).

Of course.


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