Re: [tied] Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

>[...] Was *y (or *j, tomato-tomahtah) included in the
> original formulation of lengthening devised by Szemerenyi?
> If *y is a more recent discovery, then perhaps this is where my
> little confusion may have started because I know I had started
> believing that lengthening was caused by *r, *l, *m and *n alone
> before the *y was unexpectedly dropped on my lap in one post.

I am pretty sure it was not mentioned. Szemerényi's presentation by
the way is very short and does not specify much.

Jens