Re: [tied] Slavic *sorka (was: Satem and desatemisation (was: Alban

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
wrote:

> And this proves what? It is typologically usual but that has

nothing to do

> with connecting seka and svraka. Jens wrote the first example he

stumbled

> upon in the dictionary and compared it with svraka.

No, I deliberately looked for it to check if my memory was right. I
owe some of my insight to Eric Hamp who used this example in a
conversation on shortened wordforms. I consider it a fine and
illustrative example of what is meant in the analysis. It can be
replaced by many others in case anyone has anything particular
against it.

> I am just saying that
> this is not comparable. No matter how the formation is common
> cross-linguistically. We're not talking typology here.

I was. I decide what I talk about.

Jens