On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:53:18 -0000, "Richard Wordingham"
<
richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
>I presume Miguel will kick off the discussion of the circumflexes on
>the endings of nouns with mobile accent in Instalment 14 of his
>series on morphology.
As long as I don't really understand what's going on, I'd rather avoid going
into that.
I didn't mention the Lithuanian accent when I was discussing the verb. I wonder
if Jens would care to comment on my derivation of Lith. -ù from -o:(u) < *-ouu
[without laryngeal], and 2sg. -ì from -e:i < *-éh1 + -i [with laryngeal, but
also with contraction]. Beekes' views call for a laryngeal both in *-oH and in
*-eh1i (see Beekes, p. 233). I know jer's views do _not_ call for a laryngeal
in the 1sg., but what about the 2sg.? Would *-eh1i have given an acute or a
circumflex in Lithuanian?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...