Re: [tied] IE genitive

> There are not very many mutually unrelated suffixes in IE, so
> there is no sufficient basis on which to disqualify one that
> does not look pretty. I agree that the morpheme of the
> s-aorist is contained in the *-sk^e/o-. This is patently the
> present type that originally belonged to the s-aorist. This
> is shown by pairs such as Ved. prcchati/apra:ksam,
> yacchati/aya:msam, Lat. pascor/Hitt. pahs-, Lat.
> cogno:sco:/Hitt. ganeszi, Ved. icchati/Lith.íes^kau (with
> acute reflecting s-aorist lengthened grade), and some more.

I know that you don't subscribe to the (Kortland's and other's, probably
majority) view that the laryngeals and Winter's lengthening are the only
source for the Balto-Slavic acute and add at least a lengthened grade to
the set; but since the issue is so controversial, your addition cannot
be used as an argument discussing other issues, can it?

Sergei