Re: [tied] Re: Slavic *sorka (was: Satem and desatemisation (was: A

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 30488
Date: 2004-02-02

02-02-04 14:27, Sergejus Tarasovas wrote:

> Have you kept track of the discussion from the very beginning? That would
> explain /u/ we find in Lith. <stum~bras> and Latv. <stumbrs> (if borrowed
> from pre-Slavic *3'ambra- [3'ombra-]). Pre-Slavic [o] was rendered by East
> Baltic /u/).

I think this must be right. Your suggestion is the only reasonable
explanation of the form of <stumbras> that I've ever seen.

Piotr