Re: Various loose thoughts

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Olander" <olander@...>
wrote:

>
> I agree that the <u> of <-mus> probably was an [u], not a schwa.
> That is also more or less Stang's conclusion (1975:49). The central
> point to me is that OLith. -mus reflects PBSl. *-mas.
>
> Thomas

Note that there is also a Slavic angle. Final mU can reflect *mus or
*mum or *mom, but much less easily *mos or *mons or *moH(n)(s) or *muH
(n)(s) or anything along those lines. Unless you want to separate
Baltic from Slavic that limits the possibilities.

Willem