Re: [tied] Re: Caland [was -m (-n)?]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:52:42 +0000, Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>Miguel to Jens:
>>Allright. I feared you had abandoned the analysis through *dek^mt-os >
>>*dek^m-tos. Any other examples of -Cos > -os apart from neognós (if it is
>>that)?
>
>I wish he had. It still remains unproven assumption that *dekm and *-kmt-
>are not anything more than _different_ stems. The aberrant post-IE instances
>of what appear to be forms derived from **dekmt are not adequate proof
>because numeric analogies happen far too frequently and it is the form
>*dekm that is the norm in IE. It's simply an extra theory of Jens that need
>not be assumed.

As Jens stated explicitly, it's not his theory but Szemerényi's (and it
wouldn't surprise me if someone had already had the idea before
Szemerényi). Jens just happens to agree with it, as do I. Apparently, you
and Torsten don't.


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