Re: [tied] Re: [j] v. [i]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:57:38 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>>>That fits in nicely with Slavic -i vs. -e^, but unfortunately we
>can't check against the Baltic o-stem loc.sg.
>
>We can if we accept the (traditional) view that:
>
>1. adverbs like <namie~> 'at home', dial. <orie~> 'in the air',
><tolì> (< *tolíe) ~ dial. <tolie~> 'far', <artì> ~ dial.
><artie~> 'near', <ankstì> ~ dial. <ankstie~> 'early', dial.
><vakarie~> 'in the evening' etc. directly reflect the old o-stem
>L.sg. and
>
>2. o-stem adessive (<mis^kíepi> 'to the forest') is an old locative
>postfixed with *pie 'to'.
>
>If <namie~> (et. al.) has a metatonized *-íe (circumflex is unmarked
>and usually represents an innovation when interdialectal vacillation
>between acute and circumflex is observed), the result is exactly the
>opposite to what you would expect.

I don't know. I think the opposition in Slavic between *-oi > -i and *-oi

> -e^ can only be explained as a difference in accentuation. If we look at

the history of the loc.sg. suffix (thematic *o + *-i) and the nom.sg.
suffix which is uncompounded *-oy, it would make sense if they were
distinguished in PIE as *-oï and *-oy, and that in turn would be reflected
in Balto-Slavic as *-ai~ and *-aí. So while it's possible, for all I know,
that Lith. namie~ comes from *namíe by metatony, I still feel that *namíe
must come (by yet another metatony?) ultimately from PBS *damai~ < PIE
*domoï.

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