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

On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 17:27:17 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

>On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:03:23 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
><jer@...> wrote:
>
>> The working of Saussure's Law is quite shallow, but not absolutely
>>automatic on the surface, cf. esp. the plural cases dat. ran~koms, ins.
>>ran~komis, loc. ran~kose. These must have been formed in opposition to the
>>endstressed forms of the mobile type, z^iemóms (older -omùs), z^iemomìs,
>>z^iemosè.
>
>Hmm. Isn't that simply because Saussure's Law doesn't operate across _two_
>syllables?

Sorry for my confusion. I forgot that -o- is a long vowel (and therefore
potentially acute).

On a related matter: is the final syllable of Ipl. -mìs historically acute (i.e.
-mí:s > -mìs by Leskien's law, with long vowel as in Slavic), or is it
historically short (as outside Slavic, with the possible exception of Avestan
-bi:s^)?

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