Re: [tied] Lith. Acc.pl.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:45:31 +0200, "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Miguel Carrasquer [mailto:mcv@...]
>Sent: 2002 m. rugsejo 30 d. 15:27
>To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [tied] Lith. Acc.pl.
>
>
> >>If you're talking about G.pl. *-o:m (I, perhaps confusingly, wrote
>*-o~m), yes.
>The o-stem gen.pl. consists of stem formant *-o- plus desinence *-om,
>together
>*-oom = *-o:~m (Greek -ô:n), which is different from acc. sg. *-om
>(Greek -ón)
>and presumably also from *-o:m (example perhaps Grk. khthó:n <
>*dhg^ho:m, with
>acute).
>
>Does Lith. akmuo~ belong here (*-o:n), and if it does, why do we have
>circumflex accent?

Well, I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, this is where any comparison
between the Greek acute an the Lithuanian acute falls flat on its face. Greek
has its default acute accent here: ákmo:n, ákmonos (the 2nd syllable is
unaccented, but judging by parallel hysterodynamic poimé:n, poiménos there is
no reason to assume underlying circumflex), while Lith. has its default
circumflex: acc. ãkmeniN, gen. akmen~s, and nom., with ictus shift, akmuõ.

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