Re: [tied] PIE athematic neuters

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> My current view (very tentative, but I'm still thinking) is that the
> *-r/n(t)- neuters are in fact old -nt- neuter participles (hitherto,
> essentially, a lost tribe since there is little other evidence of

such a

> formation).

I'm sorry in advance if I write a foolishness, but do Lithuanian neuter
participles have anything to do with it? If eg. <nes^ã,> 'carrying'
(neut. sg. praes. act. prtcl., now functioning also as masc. pl.)
doesn't continue *h1nek^(o)nt, then what *does* it continue then?

Sergei