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

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Sergejus Tarasovas wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:
> >These must have been formed in opposition to the
> > endstressed forms of the mobile type, z^iemóms (older -omùs)
> ...
>
> Why do you put it as -omùs? All my sources (eg., Kazlauskas' and
> Zinkevic^ius' historical grammars of Lithuanian) consistently
> postulate -ómus (as well as -àmus for *o-stems, -ìmus for *i-stems
> and -ùmus for *u-stems). Don't Dauks^a's _Postilla catholicka_ and
> 19th c. dialects of Le:nas district point to the penultimate sress?

Oh, right, sorry. I should have starred it and checked attestations. The
accent type *is* with polarized mobility, so -ómus will be a stage between
*-omùs and -óms. (And, sure, it's Zink-).

Jens