From: Mate Kapovic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: 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
> Lith. +-ù rather than -u~N. Or is *o: in *-o:m a contracted *oo?
> Interestingly, Dybo (by mostly accentological considerations -- namely,
> 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
> S^t. -a: being -- according to him -- its direct reflex).
This is crazy. It is not really Dybo's original idea but it is not valid.
Croatian/Serbian -a: in g. pl. is an inovation which has nothing to do with
a "special long jer". As it is seen in some dialects, -a: is really from
*-&h with the -a(h) being legthened because of i-stems g. pl. -i: < *-6j6
and because of the length in g. pl. of adjecitves.