--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Olander" <olander@...>
wrote:
> I agree that the <u> of <-mus> probably was an [u], not a schwa.
> That is also more or less Stang's conclusion (1975:49). The central
> point to me is that OLith. -mus reflects PBSl. *-mas.
>
But weakening seems to be a crucial point in Kazlauskas'
argumentation. [a] > [u] is hardly a weakening by any standard, not
to mention the fact that such an assimilation would be unprecedent in
Lithuanian, forms like D.du. <akìma> being direct counterexamples. I
don't state the development *-mas > -mus is excluded, I just don't
see any relevant arguments in the article.
Sergei