Re: [tied] The disappearance of *-s -- The saga continues

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:

> I'm aware that the Vedas show that the masculine -a:n was

originally -a:ns.

> But I can't find anything about the feminine -a:s. So does that

mean it

> behave as if it actually were -a:s without the nasal?

Yes. And the two are supported by Avestan: Gathic -&:ng (-aNs-ca:)
vs. -{ao} (-{ao}s-ca:). Remarkably, the acc.pl.fem. is never
disyllabic, so it is not "/-aas/" reflecting "*-aH2m.s", as might
have been expected. It really must have lost the nasal.

Jens