Jens:
> I agree completely, except that I do not know that *psd-éye-ti is
> *not* regular. That depends on how the rule is formulated and how
> other examples look of there are any.
As I said, if a rule covers a clear majority of cases and you have
something like *psd-eye- that defies the rule, it's reasonable to
conclude that *psd-eye- is irregular. It's not reasonable as you do
to pick out one irregularity and to question senselessly whether the
overwhelming _minority_ is representative of the regular pattern!
You've accepted my account of the forms you posted and yet because
one root doesn't conform, you will throw out the baby with the
bathwater.
Why on earth do you persist on siding with statistical improbabilities?
That would be like concluding: "Well, yeah, that Grimm guy makes some
sense with that nifty 'p>f' law he has there, but I got an itching
feeling that Latin 'pater'<=> English 'pastor' represents the true
regularity."
= gLeN