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

> >Then why does Brugmann bracket the r of *p&té:(r) and

*k^uo:(n)?
And

> >why does Pokorny do the same?
>
>

That seems to me a classic case of the prioritising of Sanskrit
over other

> IE dialects. If Brugmann were alive today, would he

have written
that

> form?

Note that these final -r and -n are really absent in the nominative case not only in Sanskrit, but in some other IE branches as well. It is so at least in Baltic and Slavic languages, e.g. Old Slav. nom. mati "mother" - gen. matere.

==========

Vadim Ponaryadov