Re: [tied] Re: Lith. Acc.pl.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Wordingham [mailto:richard.wordingham@...]
Sent: 2002 m. spalio 7 d. 11:04
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tied] Re: Lith. Acc.pl.

>> How do you deduce that the nominative singular (-ìs, -ùs) is
acute?  My understanding is that acute and circumflex are only
distinguished in stressed long vowels and diphthongs, and so in
themselves these forms reveal nothing.  Moreover, PIE -is, -us should
have yielded circumflex, not acute. 

 

These -ìs, -ùs are historical *-í:s and *-ó:s, contracted by Leskien rule.

>>I have notes that say that Saussure's law applies synchronically.  Is
this wrong?  I certainly can't reconcile it with the dative dual and
plural endings (o-stems -ám, áms and a:-stems óm, óms) where rãtas
forms rãtam, rãtams, not *ratám, *ratáms, and similarly
rankà forms ran~kom, ran~koms.
 

I'm not sure about dual (dual forms has disappeared from Lithuanian toward the middle of this century except some pronouns, so didn't bother to find out :), but I'll do that in some hours if nobody outruns me), but -áms and -óms are historical -ãmus and -õmus (the forms are registered in Old LIthuanian texts), with normal contractional metatony.

 

Sergei