Re: [tied] The disappearance of *-s -- The saga continues

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
wrote:

> We have evidence for *-o:ns as well as for *-ons.

I don't think so. I think we have unambiguous evidence for *-o:ns
and ambiguous evidence for either *-ons or *-o:ns. The only
reconstruction satisfying all the evidence is then *-o:ns.

> It only depends
> how you want to explain it. But from the two options, I would

choose *-ons

> because of the structural reasons.

Structural reasons can have led to the secondary development of *-
ons, not of *-o:ns. That also favours the latter.

Jens