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

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

>
> --- 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.

Looking through the book again I found further discussion (in 389.9
about 'nine', which is why I didn't see it before). "The OCS form
confirms *-nt- in contradistinction to the reflex of *-mt- seen in OCS
sUto < *s'@mto- < *k'm,tom, cf. Lith. s^im~tas." I don't agree with
the details but I'm glad to see his idea of the intermediate forms.