Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

> From: Sergejus Tarasovas [mailto:S.Tarasovas@...]
>
> By the way, positing *-o:(:) (and not *-o:n) as the
> protoform for Lith. -uõ one can easily solve the problem of
> Lith. *o-stems gen. pl. -u:~N (if from
> *-o:m):
>
> *-o:(:) > -uõ
> *-o:m > *-uom > -u:~N (Meillet's solution, if I'm not
> mistaken). No need for Kortlandt's sophistry.
>

On the other hand, one can't if he subscribes to Jens' view that the
lenghthened grade yields BSl. acute except in monophthongs: one would expect
Lith. +-ù rather than -u~N. Or is *o: in *-o:m a contracted *oo?
Interestingly, Dybo (by mostly accentological considerations -- namely, the
effect of the "new circumflex" in Slovene in SCr. in the G. pl. forms)
insists on a special "long jer" *-U: as a Sl. *o-grade G. pl. marker (SCr.
S^t. -a: being -- according to him -- its direct reflex).

Sergei