--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "pielewe" <wrvermeer@...> wrote:
>
> *sumi it is then. Are we back at PIE, or how would it look there?
You would have to add a laryngeal before the *s.
I don't want to suggest that competent reconstruction on the basis of
_all_ attestations would really yield *sUmI, though. Absence of *U is
abundantly attested, for instance, in Novgorod birchbark letters
beginning in the first half of the twelfth century, e.g. 119, which is
written in dialect.
W.