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

> From: elmeras2000 [mailto:jer@...]

> How can you know they are not prioritising Lithuanian in the case of
> r-stems, and the whole series Lithuanian-Germanic-Latin-Celtic in
> the case of n-stems?

By the way, positing *-o:(:) (and not *-o:n) as the protoform for Lith. -uõ
one can easily solve the problem of Lith. *o-stems gen. pl. -u:~N (if from
*-o:m):

*-o:(:) > -uõ
*-o:m > *-uom > -u:~N (Meillet's solution, if I'm not mistaken). No need for
Kortlandt's sophistry.

That doesn't work for Slavic (*kamy not +kama), which may well reflect *-o:n
(with regular narrowing before *n) in that case, though.

Sergei