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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] The disappearance of *-s -- The saga continues


> Not necessarily. The two forms may have developed
> differently. Jens has already mentioned the possibility
> that *-m- was lost after *h2. My suggestion of Osthoff's
> law would also have applied differently (*-o:ms > *-oms vs.
> *-eh2ms > *-eh2ms, resulting in Gmc. *-anz vs. *-o:z).

Could be. We have evidence for *-o:ns as well as for *-ons. It only depends
how you want to explain it. But from the two options, I would choose *-ons
because of the structural reasons.

Mate