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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> 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.

OK, but what about the 2 sg. of the a:-presents like <sakai~> or a:-
preterites like <tapai~>? The fact that the ending attracts ictus
from non-acuted syllables and bears broken or acute tone in
Z^emaitian dialects points to historical acute (changed to circumflex
by an automatic rule in Standard Lithuanian). Why didn't this *-ái
develop into *-íe > *-ì? Yet another metatony?

Sergei