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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> [..] I do accept it.
> I just haven't had the time to consider its wider ramifications.

Perhaps

> roots of a certain phonological structure favoured thematization

in more

> general terms (not just *-ro).

That still is possible. I mean, if such a wider and more detailed
regularity is suddenly found, it will have to be taken very
seriously.

> Hiatus-breaking n-insertion? That's not what B.A.O. says about *-

ino: "The

> type is generally assumed to have originated as *-no- derivatives

based on

> locatives in *-i from consonant stems" (tNiBA, p. 276).

I think she could have refined that. Anyway, there does not seem to
be much -ro- ~ -no- alternation, so I would suppose that -ro- and -
no- just were not synonymous (*-no- continues to form participles)
or for other reasons not parallel.

> In Slavic, we can also think of *n.no or of -Ino < *-no- directly,

with a

> cluster-breaking /I/ between two consecutive cononants, as in the

D/I/Lpl.

> of the C-stems, as required by Slavic phonotactics.

So? That would hardly make it parallel with *-ro- and *-u-.

Jens