From: tgpedersen
Message: 42872
Date: 2006-01-11
>find
> On 2006-01-10 16:15, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Why not *-n- + *-t- > *-nt-? That would mean one would have to
> > a semantically oriented explanation, rather than phonetic one formore
> > the respective occurrence of *-n-, *-t- and *-nt-, which seems
> > promising to me.The semantically oriented explanation.
>
> You've lost me. Which of the two seems more promising?
>