On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:36:31 +0200, Mate Kapovic
<
mkapovic@...> wrote:
>> >That doesn't work for Slavic (*kamy not +kama), which may well reflect
>*-o:n
>> >(with regular narrowing before *n) in that case, though.
>>
>> And finding both *-o: and *-o:n in Balto-Slavic (what's
>> more: finding both *-o:n (kamy) and *-e: (mati) in Slavic),
>> suggests that they are in fact sandhi variants.
>
>Again, Slavic dropping the *-r# here is hardly relevant.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't know if the dropping of *-r
is normal in Slavic. The -r is there in bratrU, from PIE
*bhra:to:r (but perhaps rather from acc. *bhra:trm.), and
it's there in sestra (Lith. sesuo~) < *s(w)éso:r, but that
may well be a compromise between *seso: > *sesa and acc/obl.
*sesr- > sestr-.
The narrowing of -e:(r) to -i: is similar to the narrowing
of -o:(n) to -u:. The forms without -n, -r, if I understand
Jens correctly, have circumflex accentuation, i.e. they're
superlong (-o:n vs. -o::, -e:r vs. -e::), so perhaps the
narrowed Slavic reflexes -u: > -y and -i: > -i do in fact
both point to sandhi-variants without final sonorant. I
don't see how you could get -e:r > -i otherwise.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...