Re: [tied] Slavic *sUto -> is NOT INHERIT

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

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

> > The single example with *m. > *U is "regular" and
> all the
> > counterexamples are analogical? This gives a new
> meaning to the notion
> > of regularity ;-)

> The only other linguist I've been able to find who
> agrees is Andrew Sihler, who wrote "OCS deseNtU (for
> *desUtU < *dek^m,tos after deveNtU)" in section 398.10
> of his "New Comparative Greek and Latin Grammar". I
> can't find any description of the proposed
> intermediate steps in his (or anyone else's)
> derivation.
>
> Obviously I wouldn't think this were a regular
> change if *-um didn't become -U with loss of m. Since
> Baltic and Slavic apparently retained m before t much
> later than some other branches, it leaves open a
> possible change that shows *nt and *mt differed
> before the nasal merger before stops.

I've found more evidence in the treatment of soN- / sU-. Before a
vowel or KW in the next syllable *sum- > *suw- > sU-.

*xnY,gYh+ > sUvENzati

*gWhub+ > sUgUnoNti

Therefore I've become fairly certain sUto is regularly derived from
PIE. My rules are tentatively:

s>s./_w [-front]
i>u/_m t [-front]
s.>x
m>w/u_#
m>w/u_%V
m>w/u_$KW
m>w/u_$t
x>xY / [front] _
V+N-tone > u\o / xw_ or _xw