Re: [tied] Morphology (10/20)

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 12:09:42 -0000, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> Likewise, if in the middle 3pl. we find *-ntom, *-ntor(i), *-nto
>(i), *-ntodh(i), the possibility that all these forms represent
>>the debris of an old paradigm
>> where each form had its proper function is worth investigating.
>>
>
>If we accept this argument, why doesn't it apply it to the
>centum/satem reflexes of PIE velars (k/s etc)?

I fail to see the connection.

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