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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
wrote:

> What about -u in D. sg in Slavic? Some, like Solta, have assumed

that PIE

> o-stem D. sg *-o:y had a sandhi variant *-o: because of Latin D.

sg -o: and

> this PIE *-o: would go with Maz^iulis who claims that -uo is
> the original D. sg in Lith. and he derives it from PIE *-o:.

Indeed, this D.

> sg -uo in Lith. could be explained the same as -uo in n-stem N. sg

but in

> Slavic it doesn't work.

I would be surprised if it could be shown that Latin or the
paricular dialect of Lithuanian can be shown to reflect *real* *-o:y
in a different way. If that cannot be demonstrated there is no real
need to posit a special form just to honour these variants.

> Could D. sg of o-stems also somehow be included into
> the superlongvowel-theory? I don't see how but...

It should if is from *-o: and has not been shortened by Leskien's
law. It could the truth, but I would like to see some compelling
evidence.

Jens