Re: Mille (thousand)

Would anyone but a linguist "surmise" or "reanalyse" an s-mobile?
Isn't the s mobile because it comes and goes naturally without thought
by the speakers?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>
> My point is that they may have forgotten that *smi-
> was a morpheme and surmised that *s- was s-mobile
>
> --- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rick McCallister
> >
> > I've seen that but wondered about it
> > Was the *s- reanalyzed as s-mobile?
> > > ===================
> > > http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE164.html
> > >
> > If you cut *smi - ghesl-
> > as s + mi-gheslo
> >
> > How do you reanalyse mi as < sem "one" ?
> >
> > I don't think it can be *s mobile.
> >
> > Arnaud