Re: sum

From: pielewe
Message: 38516
Date: 2005-06-11

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "pielewe" <wrvermeer@...> wrote:


>
> *sumi it is then. Are we back at PIE, or how would it look there?


You would have to add a laryngeal before the *s.


I don't want to suggest that competent reconstruction on the basis of
_all_ attestations would really yield *sUmI, though. Absence of *U is
abundantly attested, for instance, in Novgorod birchbark letters
beginning in the first half of the twelfth century, e.g. 119, which is
written in dialect.



W.