Re: [tied] Tyrhennian affiliation

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:21:49 +0000, Rob
<magwich78@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> Who said they were related?
>
>Sorry, you seemed to be suggesting that.

Not at all. I was saying that if you want to derive -c(h)
from earlier -kV, you must also explain why the unrelated
suffix -ce did not also become -c. I was trying to keep
them as separate as possible.

>> No, that's not it. Final -e is also dropped in nouns:
>> *methlume > methlum (G. methlumes(')).
>
>All right. What then caused the final /e/ to be preserved in -ce?

I don't know. It can be a difference in accentuation (-ke >
-k, but -ké > -ke), a former long vowel (-ke > -k but -ke: >
-ke), a former additional consonant after -ce (-ke > -k but
-keC > -ke), or perhaps some other scenario. It would help
if we knew where that ending -ce comes from...


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...