Re: [tied] Re: Lith. Acc.pl.

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