[tied] Re: Lith. Acc.pl.

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 16077
Date: 2002-10-08

--- 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.

Previous in thread: 16076
Next in thread: 16079
Previous message: 16076
Next message: 16078

Contemporaneous posts     Posts in thread     all posts