Re: [tied] Re: Lith. Acc.pl.
From:
Sergejus Tarasovas
Message:
16080
Date:
2002-10-08
Message
-----Original Message-----
From:
Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen [mailto:jer@...]
>
I do not buy the tonal considerations
Thank you for you comments. That's mostly why I called the passage a sophistry.
>
and so cannot see from -óms that
it has retained a significantly old (how old is "senokas"?)
'pretty/sufficiently old'.
Sergei