Re: [tied] Tyrhennian affiliation

In article <ca1pq7+1gp0@eGroups.com> Rob <magwich78@...> wrote:
. . .

> I think it's doubtful that -c(h) "and" and verbal preterite -ce are
> related, as the semantics hardly match. However, any bound
> monophonic morpheme must come from an earlier syllabic morpheme. So,
> while the verbal preterite is -ce, -c(h) "and" must come from some
> earlier -c(h)V sequence, where V is probably not /e/.

I not sure about "must come from an earlier syllabic morpheme".
It would be possible for such phenomena as borrowing, re-interpretation
of context, etc. to create a monophonic morpheme, just like the
(non-monophonic) prefixes "mini-" and "maxi-" have recently been
created in English.

I would agree, however, that it is _most likely_ that a monophonic
morpheme came from an earlier syllabic morpheme.

--
Brent J. Ermlick Veritas liberabit uos
brent3@...