From: stlatos
Message: 70764
Date: 2013-01-22
>Isn't that normal? Or do you thinks rxs > rs first?
> R-metathesis in *orht seems likely enough, yielding *roht
> and quite possibly *rought. I can't find anything to give a
> good indication of what *orhs might have done, with or
> without r-metathesis, but I'm skeptical of *hs > *ks.
>