The most likely explanation I can think of
is this: -- The _regular_ development of *eg^H(s) should have produced *es
or *ez rather than *(j)Iz/*iz. But function morphemes such as prepositions
(especially frequently used ones) don't always develop regularly. For example,
Old Prussian has regular <en> 'in' (from PIE *en), but Lithuanian has
<in> and Slavic has *vUn < *Un < *un, both looking like relatively
recent (not even common Balto-Slavic) weak forms. Slavic *Iz and Baltic *is^ may
be just such weak forms of late dialectal origin.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick C. Ryan
To:
cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 11:11 PM
Subject:
Re: [tied] Old Bulgarian izU
[Piotr Gasiorowski:]
... There are enough Slavic verbs like
those below for the pattern to be quite clear:
1sg.
Inf.
Iterat.
*mIr-o~ *mer-ti
*mir-ati 'die'
*dIr-o~
*der-ti *dir-ati
'tear'
*z^Im-o~ *z^e~-ti *z^im-ati
'squeeze'
*Im-o~ *e~-ti
*im-ati 'take'
Here, only the infinitive *(j)e~ti
shows the original vocalism (*em-); *Im- contains a secondary (Balto-Slavic)
reduced grade (*Im- < *im-, cf. Lith. imu, imti), and the iterative the
legthened variant thereof (*im- < *i:m-). *Im- is not a development of PIE
*em- but a new form in a thoroughly restructured paradigm.
[PCR]
How
then would you explain iz?