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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:11 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?
>
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see how you explain Slavic g. pl. from *-oom > *-o::m.
> > Slavic -7
> > > looks like plain PIE *-om to me.
> >
> > Maybe it does, but would you also posit PIE short *-om as the
> > gen.pl. of *aH2-stems?
>
> Plain analogy. All declensions have -7 (or -6) in Slavic. Like all
> declensions in Greek and Sanskrit have *-o:m.

So how do you know they do not all have *-oom in Slavic as in Baltic
and all the other languages that can show the difference?

Jens