From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 32254
Date: 2004-04-24
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:And I had never considered "LDE" in my efforts to find a
>
>> Well, after struggling the whole day to get it working, I've
>> finally succeeded.
>>
>> The idea is simple. There are three vowel raising factors:
>> (1) circumflex raising [C]
>> (2) *-n or *-m (> *-N) raising [N]
>> (3) *-s (> *-h) raising [H]
>>
>> There are three factors affecting the length:
>> (1) shortening by decircumflexion [DC]
>> (2) shortening by elimination of long diphthongs (V:i, V:u,
>> V:N, V:l, V:r) [LDE]
>> (3) lengthening by *-Rs [NH]
>
>Thank you, Miguel. I must admit I tried to check the idea myself, but
>run up against some -- unsurmounteable, as it seemed to me at the
>moment -- difficulties and decided the idea doesn't work in the end.
>Still I hoped you'll probably be more luckier and come up with
>something -- and you have. :)
>The main difficulty was the fact that the "LDE shortening" one needsThe classical Indo-European and Balto-Slavic sonorants are
>to account for the *o-stems G.pl. conflicts, say, with *y of the *-
>and *a:-stems Acc.pl. I thought that the shortening was blocked (or
>the length was restored) before [#h], but the idea seemed too
>speculative and ad hoc to me. You have overcome the controversy by
>postulating a lengthening by *-Rs. This raises the question: are
>there any other examples (except *-o::is, *-a:ms and *-o:ms you
>listed) to support the rule? And why would one classify *i as a
>sonorant (or at least put it in the same natural class along with
>*m)? I think it's the crucial point for the whole idea, and an ad hoc
>rule would deeply compromise it.
>> The problems start with the "soft" endings, which have f.I must have missed that. Shame, it would have saved me a
>> gen.sg. (and f.nom.pl.), m/f/ acc.pl. -jeN where the "hard"
>> endings have -y. After having hacked through most
>> permutations in the ordering of C-raising, N-raising,
>> H-raising, shortening, lengthening, and J-umlaut, and never
>> getting it right, I accidentally (well, by quitting hacking
>> the code and thinking about the matter) stumbled upon the
>> corect answer (at least, an answer that gets all the results
>> right in the Sound Changer).
>>
>> Surprisingly, this answer does not involve the Umlaut of
>> -jo- > -je-, as I had incorrectly assumed all day long.
>
>So had I before I looked up in Kortlandt's FPITS.
>
>> The
>> answer involves raising *-o:ms/*-a:ms all the way to *-u:Nh,
>> and then, to quote the Sound Changer:
>>
>> [input: g^hem-j-eh2-ms]
>> ...
>> a:N->o:N /_(h)# applies to 3emja:Nh at 8
>> o:->u: /_(N)h# applies to 3emjo:Nh at 8
>> u->i /j_ applies to 3emju:Nh at 5
>> i:->X /_ applies to 3emji:Nh at 6
>> X->i /_ applies to 3emjXNh at 5
>> 3->z /_ applies to 3emjiNh at 1
>> iN->e~ /_ applies to zemjiNh at 6
>> h-> /_# applies to zemje~h at 7
>> [output: zemje~]
>>
>> The only trick is the development -iN > -e~, besides -eN and
>> -IN > -e~ (this part *was* accidental, I meant -IN > e~, but
>> the code said -iN).
>
>Kortlandt actually offers the same solution (which I reported in one
>of my recent postings).
>The fact that you have come to the same ideaYes for the first part (-e.N). I don't really see a need
>independently raises the probability you're both right. He even goes
>a bit further (trying to account for non-South Slavic *-e^) assuming
>the reflexes of *-iN and *-eN didn't merge in non-South Slavic, *-iN
>yielding *-e.N, later denasalized in East Slavic (and in Lekhitic?)
>to -e^, and *-eN yielding *-äN, denasalized to *-'a (except Lekhitic).