Re: [tied] Lith. Acc.pl.

-----Original Message-----
From: Miguel Carrasquer [mailto:mcv@...]
Sent: 2002 m. rugsėjo 30 d. 14:41
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 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). 
 ... 
>> 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."]

 

Probably a silly question, but nevertheless: while I can still realize what short prosody of *-oy vs. longer/disyllabic prosody of *-oi could be (that's why I haven't asked Jens himself), I can hardly imagine how this explanation could be extended to involve *-ons vs. *-om, especially what "disyllabic prosody" of *-om could be. Do we have 2 syllables? If so, why *m is not vocalized? Prolongated *o? What's the difference from plain long *o: then? The whole syllable is pronounced longer (?) or ar least has an accent contour pertaining to 2 syllables? What are the reasons to posit these phonological entities for PIE? Am I missing something completely?

 

Sergei