Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

On Sat, 24 May 2003 12:13:39 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> The ending of the o-stem (thematic)
>> ablative can be shown to have been long (*-o:t), and in fact can be
>> shown to have been contracted from *-o-Vt (because Lithuanian has a
>> circumflex accent, not an acute: Gen. (< Abl.) rãto < *rotHõ:(t) vs.
>> Ins. ratù < *rotHó:).
>
>
>Or < *rotHoh1

Or *rotHo:h1 !

>Do you believe genuine (not resulting from contraction)
>long vowels yield acute in Lithuanian even in laryngeal-free and non-
>Winterian contexts (at least word-finally)? Why do we have circumflex
>in the N.sg. of consonantal (<dukte:~>, <akmuo~>) and -e:-
>(<kate:~>) stems, 3 praes. of -a:- stems (<lai~ko>) and 3 praet. of -
>a:- (<riñko>) and -e:- (<lai~ke:>) stems? A contraction of what?

Well, I was limiting my scope to the o-stems only, where we can see a
difference between contracted long vowels (Dat. *-o:~i, Abl. *-o:~t)
and other long vowels (Ins.sg. *-ó:(h1), Acc.pl. *-ó:ns), a difference
which is also apparent in Greek (Dsg. -o:~i, Apl. -oús) and therefore
appears to be inherited. I was not trying to formulate a complete
theory about the Balto-Slavic accent, which I'm afraid I'll have to
leave to another lifetime.

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