Re: [tied] The centum-word... Correction

On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 01:57:35 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>
>
>I said:
>>not from the loss of final *-x (< *wat:n/*wet:arx), dare I ask?
>
>Correction: It should be *wat:r/*wet:arx (or earlier
>*wat:n/*wet:anxe) and not *wat:n/*wet:arx. Stupid me.

I thought you were opposed to **-nC > *-rC. In which case, you really
mean *wat:r/*wet:ar + -x ?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...