Re: [tied] Re: Polish G. -ga

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Polish G. -ga



> ...Slavic *-go is simply the ablative ending *-od (*-ot) after a vowel.

> As I said before, since the Lithuanian pronominal genitive is historically an ablative too (G. tõ, kõ, s^iõ, jõ), the origin of the Slavic pronominal genitive should in the first place be sought in the
PIE ablative.

> The uncontracted ablative form of the pronouns survived into proto-Slavic (*is -> *eod) > *jI -> *eo, (*k^is, *k^eod) > *sI -> *seo(d), and also *too(d), *k(W)oo(d), etc. To block the hiatus, -w- (-v-) or -h- (-g-) was inserted, as also happens in Slavic before /o/ in the Anlaut, thus giving jego, sego, togo, kogo (Russian /jIvó/, /s'Ivó/, /tavó/, /kavó/).

It all sounds very convincing. Just two questions:

(1) Do you mean that *e-od, *to-od etc. are forms inherited from PIE? The evidence for the ablative is limited, by my impression is that it originally employed the *-sm(o)- "extension" like the dative and the locative (*e-sm-ed, *to-sm-ed, or thematic *-smo:d). On the other hand, if you assumed that the shorter forms are (Balto-)Slavic innovations, perhaps thesecond question might be easier to answer.

(2) Why do we find plain contraction (*-o:(d)) rather than hiatus-filling (*-oho(d) ~ *-owo(d)) in the *o-stem nouns?

Piotr