[tied] Re: Latin barba in disaccord with Grimm's Law?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- gprosti <gprosti@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen
> > <stlatos@> wrote:
>
> > > I have ten, but some are repeats. I understand
> > that
> > > it may not "sound right" in some languages besides
> > > English, but saying "one, two and three, four and
> > > five" doesn't seem odd; it's not only on the final
> > > word of the chant that "and" can appear.
> > >
> >
> > If *kWe was an enclitic, it seems odd to me that it
> > would be
> > analyzed as part of a following word rather than as
> > part of a
> > preceding one.
>
> This kind of reanalysis is always odd to the people
> who haven't done it. If it was fairly late then
> *treyeskWe but *trins, etc., wouldn't be as acceptable
> as *kWetwores (since PIE changed the endings; the
> beginning remained).

I'm not sure I understand your second sentence. Are you saying that
*kWe would have been analyzed as belonging to the preceding word in
the case of *treyes kWe, but to the following word in the case of
*trins kWe, due to differing syllable weights?