--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> Would it be plausible to assume the following:
>
> * h-raising was late in Krivichian, and came in part _after_
> j-Umlaut.
>
> * this gave a paradigm in the (j)o-stems:
>
> hard soft
> nom. *-U -(j)e ~ -(j)I
> acc. -U -(j)I
>
> * "soft" -(j)e, allowing a convenient distinction between
> nom. and acc., spread to hard stems, giving:
>
> nom -e -(j)e ~ (j)I
> acc. -U -(j)I
Vermeer and Krys'ko tried to speculate along the same lines: they
assume N.sg. -o (*o-masculina) and -je (*jo-masculina) for some stage
of pre-Krivichian (or even Proto-Slavic in general), -e having spread
to hard stems. A weak point I see here (both in your and their
explanation) is the fact N.sg. and Acc.sg have nearly merged in the
soft declension itself: -(j)e is very rare, the *-IcI and *-zI (a
product of the 3rd palatalization) being a strange exception (there -
I and -e seem to be distributed more or less equally).
> Did Krivichian use the acc. or the gen. for animate objects?
Acc. prevails; G. is limited to personal names and -- to a lesser
extent -- to common names denoting persons (not animate objects in
general), and is often ascribed to the influence of Standard Old
Russian, Church Slavonic and other Slavic dialects.
Sergei