Re: [tied] Baltic evidence for *sW-?

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:

> My specialty is not hydronyms and other toponyms, which is why I
> didn't feel replying to that message would contribute much. Also, I
> was thinking the Baltic reflex of phoneme *X had to be simple *s, at
> least I think the loc.pl. always has /s/, and the 2sg. active is of

no

> use, as it has been replaced (presumably by an ending abstracted

from

> *es-sei, interpreted as *es-ei). But I had forgotten about Lith.
> <s^es^ì> (and OPr. <uschts>!), so there may be something to it after
> all. <S^eduvà> as "the running" vel sim. does make obvious sense...

I didn't mention <s^es^i`> explicitly because by some reason I
thought you assume *sW > Baltic *s^ by default (it would be logical
for the reflexes of *sW and *[RUKI]s to merge in Baltic if they did
that in Slavic). But why your theory should predict Baltic *s<*sW (if
you haven't changed your mind yet)?

Sergei