--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
> I didn't realize this was Kortlandt's. Reference?
F. H. H. Kortlandt. On the History of the Slavic Nasal Vowels.
Indogermanische Forschungen, 1979, 84, 259-272.
In short, he suggests the following (including relative chronology):
1. *a:, *o: are raised before word-final sonants
2. *a and *a: are labialized and merged with *o and *o:, resp.
3. *iN, *eN, *oN and *uN emerge (though he supports bi-phonemic
status of Proto-Slavic nasalized vowels and treates them sorta
diphthongs).
4. vowels are raised before final *-s.
5. *o: and *o are delabialized
6. 1st palatalization
7. monophthongization of diphthongs
8. 2nd palatalization (he is wrong, cf. Krivichian, where 2nd
palatalization failed as such)
9. *-s is lost
10. protheses emerge
11. delabialization (as a general tendency applied both to vowels and
consonants)
12. etc.
> >There are some
> >moments which don't let me accept it 100%, though.
> >1. Secondary -s in *-o:n/-en- stems looks a bit ad hoc-ish.
>
> But what if it also explains mati < ma:te:r+s?
Yes of course. And *i2< *ois as well :)
> >5. *s-shift is nice to explain *-os > *-U, but what about *nebo ,
> >*slovo etc? Of course prosodical moments can be envolved, but they
> >are quite shaky themselves.
>
> s-stem neuters in *-os and o-stem neuters in *-om behave
irregularly.
> The only plausible solution is to admit influence from *tod.
A bit inconsistent. You involve merely phonetic explanations, but as
they fail, switch to analogy (following, IMHO, one of the the most
lamiest solutions). It would be more consistent to stay on phonetic
ground and consider (phonologically) stressed (>*o):unstressed (>-*U)
opposition (with later retraction of stress from the ending, cf.
Illich-Svitych's and Dybo's research on the matter). By the way, it's
the analogical explanation which is plausible nowadays at least for *-
os> *-U.
Sergei