[tied] Re: Scythian tribal names- Correction

Sorry, but after I read "Irættæ" which should have been
"Irætæ" according to what I just posted questioning
Piotr, something woke up my brain and I checked my books.
It seems that both Irontæ and Irættæ < *Iræntæ are in
fact used and that no "Irætæ" nor "Irtæ", as my idea would
have suggested, exist. So please ignore that part of my
question Piotr, and I hope I caught George before he took
his time machine back to the 12th century. :-)
-David

--- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> *****GK: Thanks for this.****
> --- liberty@... wrote:
> > Irættæ is the plural of Ir, but just Ir is normally
> > used for the plural if the context makes it clear.

- and -

--- In cybalist@..., liberty@... wrote:
> And isn't the
> ending -on < *-a:n supposed to be from the Indo-Iranian genit.
> plur. ending -a:na:m? If so then it seems that you could have
> *a:lætæ and a:lon alongside each other but no further -tæ
> plural built on the -on form. However if -on is a word-building
> suffix and not originally a case ending then a plural like
> *a:lættæ < **a:lanta seems possible as it is with Oss. don
(pl.
> dættæ) < *da:n (pl. *danta) "river, water". Although I don't
> know that -on from an original case ending couldn't have been
> reanalyzed and then treated as any other suffix. Also I wan