Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
> <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
> Or is *o: in *-o:m a contracted *oo?
>
> I'm almost sure it is. It has a circumflex in Greek too, and it
> counts for two syllables in the Avestan Gathas.

Everything looks quite neatly, then.

> And there's the
> heavier jer reflex in Slavic.

So you too accept this special jer? I've been sure it was a Dybo's
idiosyncrasy. But do you accept its phonemic status? And if you do,
doesn't it look a bit lavish for the Common Slavic to reserve a
special phoneme for one and only morpheme?

Sergei