Re: [tied] Dybo's law

> >Because if 1st sg.'s vowel didn't self-nasalise there must have

been

> >a nasal ending which helped. And that must have been -mi or -mu,
> >with a vowel
>
> Obviously without a vowel: the ending is -oN.

I concluded that for systematic reasons, not because of evidence. If
3rd sg. and pl. have primary endings, I thought 1st sg. should too.

>
> The -N was added comparatively recently. It is absent from
> PIE (*-o:) and Baltic (Lith. -ù < *-uó < *-o:), and it can't
> have been present in Proto-Slavic, because *-o:N would have
> given *-U (raising to u: before N gives *-u:N ; shortening
> of long diphthongs gives *-uN ; denasalization of high
> vowels gives *-u ; *-u gives -U). The -N must have been
> added at least after the raising of back vowels before -N.
>

How would your proposed -mW (or -mu?) have done? Could it have
preserved the nasal -m- as a timebomb in a separate syllable, to be
released when the -W was worn off? Or how would *-mnW fare?


Torsten