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

Sergei:

> And as to *nep-t, Martin Huld writes in EIEC:
> "...correct segmentation revealed by the feminine forms is *nep-ot-
> in which -ot- is the same nominal suffix found in Germanic *me:no:þ-
> 'month' (from 'moon') or Hit <si:w-att-> 'day' (from 'daytime sky')".

But then where's **nep(o)- without suffix? I doubt this for *nepot-.
As for the other examples, isn't this just the suffix *-t as we find
optionally in *melit 'honey' marking inanimates? Since *nepot- isn't
an inanimate, this certainly sounds fishy unless we have reason to
think this is a "Mädchen" kinda thing.


= gLeN