> =======
> I believe *puH is a better reconstruction,
> *puH-a > Erzia puv-a-ms
> but
> Moksha is upH-a > uf-a-ms.
>
> A.
> =======
Mordvin *-pu- > Erzya -up-, or something more general?
That's not a very natural type of metathesis.
==========
We're talking about Moksha not Erzia.
There are a certain number of possible metatheses.
*puH-a > *upHa > *ufa is one
PIE *kwâs "cough" > II *kas > aks-örd- is another
Psi "fire" and ops^-tad "to burn" is one more from UEW *pis'-
The word kenks^ is first attested in 1692 as kensk.
Metathesis is not a predictable phenomenon.
A.
==========
> Are you really a Dane or a word-processor gone wild ?
> A.
Strangely enough, when I'm about to win an argument with a Swede, they
never fail to change subject to that of the gutturalness of Danish and
Scanian, as if the very euphoniousness of their language ensured the
truth of what they stated in it. You're not *that* stupid, are you?
Torsten
========
I remember Rollon is one of my ancestors at the 34th Cneow
So I guess I will remain neutral about that issue.
Nevertheless, the reverse argument that you must be right because your
language sounds ugly is wrong as well.
A.