[tied] Re: Lith. Acc.pl.

--- In cybalist@..., Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:

>I would get from a presumed *-omùs via attested -ómus to -óms much
> as one gets from vandenès via vandènes to present-day vanden~s,

though I

> do not know a good formulation of a rule that would enable us to

predict

> the syncope.

Why vanden~s and not **vandéns?

Richard.