>the old
> puzzle of why the 2sg pres. ind. of *h1es- "be" has only one -s- (Skt
> ási, Av. ahi, Gk. ei~)...
Homer, of course, shows us essi. (Linear B is understandably not rich in 2nd
person forms!)
That means there is early evidence for double -ss-.
Given the reduction of double ss to single s in locative plural in Skt,
aren't we left unable to say whether an original -ss- has been simplified
to -s-, or an original -s- has been doubled in Homer?
Peter