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

From: Mate Kapović
Message: 32050
Date: 2004-04-19

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 4:37 PM
Subject: RE: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

> > From: elmeras2000 [mailto:jer@...]
> > How can you know they are not prioritising Lithuanian in the case of
> > r-stems, and the whole series Lithuanian-Germanic-Latin-Celtic in
> > the case of n-stems?
> 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
> Kortlandt's sophistry.

The other possibility could be that *-n drops and that *-m doesn't.

> That doesn't work for Slavic (*kamy not +kama), which may well reflect
> (with regular narrowing before *n) in that case, though.

It couldn't. *-o:n (> *-a:n) would give -oN, not -y. Same as *-a:n < *-a:m
gives -oN in A. sg of eh2-stems and *-a:ns gives -y in a. pl.