Re: Various loose thoughts

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> Now can we conclude then that the Dpl. ending was -mó:ns in
> Proto-Baltic (> Lith. -mus and OP -mans)?

AFAIK, one can't state it definitely wasn't. OP also has -man, and
it's not clear which of the two is secondary.

> And would the OLith. forms be:
>
> D -àmus -ómus -ìmus -ùmus

Yes.

> L -iesù (or -íesu?) -osù -isù -usù

Both -íesu and -iesù (attested vestigially in dialectal numerals like
keturíesu, keturiesù). I see no simple way to tell which is older.

-osù and -isù are OK.

*-usu is not attested.

> I -omìs -imìs -umìs

Yes.

> If I understand Olander's proposal, the expected forms would
> be:
>
> D *-amùs -ómus *-imùs *-umùs
> (Saussure's law, except in the a:-stems)
> L *-ie~su(?) *-ósu *-ìsu *-ùsu
> (no Saussure's law)
> I *-ómis -imìs -umìs
> (Saussure's law as above).
>
> Is that correct?

I hope we'll hear from Thomas himself.

Sergei