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

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

>>Now all that's required is a palatalization law to explain -i- < *n^.
>
>It's not required at all. Simply put: *n is *n and *y is *y.

To quote a recent message by Marius Iacomi:

> cotoneu(m) > *cutun'u/*gutun'u (Common Romanian) > gutui (DRom.)

So you're with Alex on this one?

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