Re: [tied] Lith. Acc.pl.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:29:26 +0200, "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:

>>>In the plural, we have a different picture. The acuteness of the
>acc.pl. (and
>the nom.pl. of adjectival o-stems), apparently reflects the PIE short
>prosody of
>e.g. o-stems nom.pl. *-oy and acc.pl. *-ons, as opposed to long prosody
>in the
>oblique (e.g. G.pl. *-o~m).
>
>Where does the notion of "PIE short vs. long prosody" reflecting as
>Balto-Slavic acute vs. circumflex comes from (and what does that mean
>phonetically)? Could you provide me with any references or have you and
>Jens just coined this out some hours ago? :)

I was referring to the difference between e.g. nom.pl. *-oy (Greek and Lith.
-oí) vs. loc.sg. *-oi (Greek and Lith. -oi~). [Or, as Jens put it: "... showing
that plain *-o- + the consonant /y/ yielded acute tone (or, had short prosody)
in word-final in the source of both languages (which can hardly be anything
other than PIE). They also show that the concatenation of *-o- and the
deictic particle /i/ of the locative yielded Gk. Isthmoi~, Lith. namie~
with a different (circumflex, longer, or disyllabic) prosody from the one
of the nom.pl."]

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...