Re: [tied] Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

Wait, just thinking some more.

Why is *y included in this set? What instances of nominative
loss exist after *y? When I think of *rei- "property", there's
Latin /re:s/ with *-s. Szenerenyi didn't include *y, did he?
So then where does that come from? Anyone have insight?


= gLeN