Jens:
> I do not think anything in our discussion is affected by the
> introduction of these details (which I have been accepting all
> along, by the way).
Ooops, one more note. Yes, it _is_ affected. In our discussion
of *wertmn, you wanted me to explain its derivation with
the assumption that because it operates under normal
quantitative ablaut that it must date to preSyncope times.
With the examples of strive/strove and mouse/mice, we
see that this is an empty assumption and not necessarily
true. In my theory, it isn't true at all because Quantitative
Ablaut (minus reduction of *e/*o to zero) predates Syncope
by an important length of time. So our discussion is being
affected by these details. If you are agreeing with me here,
then you shouldn't have been debating against that point,
but you were. Unless you have some added reason to think
that *wertmn is particularly ancient besides ablaut.
= gLeN