Re: [tied] as-

--- In cybalist@..., "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:

> Torsten:
> >As for /ais/, /eis/ not being in Lemnian, who would expect it to be
> >documented there, with the limited number of inscriptions? It's

like

> >saying that "beet" is not documented in Gothic, therefore it's not
> >part of Proto-Germanic. Give me a break!
>
> Give US a break! No one ever said that it's *not* present in
> Lemnian either. However, the fact is that it hasn't been found
> there so far. Therefore, we can use Etruscan /eis/ no problem, but
> we will have to *assume* that Lemnian *eis existed. Whether you
> choose to assume the Lemnian cognate or not, a form like *as-
> isn't based on any existing form (nor is it based on tried and
> true sound correspondances or an understanding of previous stages
> of Etruscan). A form like *eis- with diphthong would be the
> likeliest EtruscoLemnian protoform, in my opinion.
>
>

Which rules out *ais-? And why?

Torsten