>> They have a similar enough form to be anti-etymologicallyYes, but so what? Tone matters in Mandarin but it doesn't stop
>> with each other.
> No, vowel length matters in this language.
> I do not insist on PIE *még^-o:H2-s,You had for the past few posts. Now you admit to its irrelevance
> The last part of the stem which consists of root //meg^-// + aNo, you're apparently showing *meg- and **-ox-. Forms like *gWen-ex-
> suffix //-eH2-//.
> The languages are not identical. Sanskrit has nom. mahá:n which mayThen you can go ahead and connect every word that ends in -n to a
> indeed reflect this form in the same way as the comparative in IE *-
> yo:s has -ya:n in Sanskrit, and the pf.ptc.act. in IE *-wo:(t)-s has
> Skt. -va:n.
> Languages change. Note that this form in not needed for the argumentYes, you've made it clear that you bring up irrelevancies to hamper
> at hand, as I have made clear already.
> What is meant by identical here? These are different, and 'nine'It's irrelevant because in many languages this distinction disappeared.
> has an initial laryngeal, 'new' does not.
> No, it can mean a single "group of (ten) tens". The expected form ofThere's no need for this superfluous haplology if you just accept
> that would be *dk^mt-dk^mt-ó-m. If that was haplologized [...]
> I can't change the language. And if *mo- is expected on externalI'm interested in the existence of *mo-, certainly, however even
> grounds to have existed in (pre-) IE, and other pronouns form
> adverbs meaning 'when' and 'as' by using the accusative singular of
> the masculine and feminine respectively, as *kWo-m, *kWa-H2-m, then
> a potential reflex of *mo-m and *ma-H2-m ought to be treated with
> some interest.