Re: [tied] Definite adjectives: correction

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 28533
Date: 2003-12-16

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:55:44 -0500 (EST), "Brent J. Ermlick"
<brent3@...> wrote:

>In article <qksstvkfks6me6nn1b8v7lfpc3vmg7gtcj@4ax.com> Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> . . .
>> I forgot G.pl. -o:m (Lith. -u~N, although Slavic *-U seems to continue
>> *-om). I also forgot that the abl.sg. was not *-o:t but must still have
>> been uncontracted *-oot in PBS (>Lith. -o~, not *-uo~, Slavic pronominal
>> -oo > -oho > -ogo).
>
>I'm confused. Are you implying a general rule here of *h -> *g at some
>stage of proto or common Slavic?

A general rule is perhaps a bit strong for something that only happened in
two cases (the genitive endings -ogo and -ego). Besides, in Northern
Russian we have -ovo, -evo.

In hiatus position, o- may acquire a v- or h- in Slavic languages (okno
"window" -> Ukr. vikno, USorb. wokno, LSorb. hokno; ostryj "sharp" -> Ukr.
hostryj, etc.).

Proto-Slavic certainly had a phoneme /h/ for a while. It normally
developed out of final -s, and its trace can be found in the effect it had
on the preceding vowel (nom.sg. *-os > *-uh > *-U; dat.sg. *-o:i > *-o^ >
-u vs. ins.pl. *-o:is > *-o^h > -u: > -y). Both finally (*-h < *-s) and
initially (anti-hiatus *h-) the normal result is -0-, but medially
(anti-hiatus *-oho-, *-eho-) we find -g- (> -h- in Upper Sorbian, Czech,
Slovak, Belorussian, Ukrainian, Southern Russian) and -v- (Northern
Russian).


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