Re: [tied] Re: Indo-Iranian

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:11:57 +0000, fortuna11111 <fortuna11111@...>
wrote:

>> I can see no reason at all why one shouldn't accept the
>common prototype
>> *kontja,
>unless for purposes of special pleading (and even then, it will be
>> pleading in vain).
>
>Miguel, my message contained a predominance of question
>marks, where did you see the pleading?

I meant in general. All the Slavic forms are explicable as derived from
Proto-Slavic *kontja, so that's what they are derived from.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...