Re: [tied] Final -oi/-ai in Balto-Slavic

--- Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:36:33 -0800 (PST), Sean Whalen
> <stlatos@...> wrote:

> > There is no reason to assume oi/ai had merged
> >at the time final V() were shifting.
>
> Yes there is.

They merge. Why before this rule, not after?

> >The changes in word-final combos:
> >
> >is is. ix i: i
>
> But it is in fact -I
>
> >us us. ux y: y
>
> But it is in fact -U

The nom. forms become -ix/ux but analogy causes
-ux > -us, etc., after -os > -us. I already wrote
this out. The reason I know -is > ix > i: is
-tis > ti (no place for ana.).

> >os os us u U
> > as æs æ E
>
> There seem to be no cases of PIE *-as attested in
> Slavic.

That's why the PIE spot is blank. Final *-wus
dis. > *-was; etc.

> >ei ei i: i: i
> >oi oi ui i: i
>
> It is in fact -ê (and -oj > -i)

You started this thinking about why -oi/ai become
different sounds; I say it's because they hadn't
merged before -oi > -ui.

> > ai æi æ: E
> >oyi o:i u:i u: u
> >oyis o:is u:s y: y
>
> The ins.pl. can't have been -o:is, as that would
> have given
> Lith. *-uis instead of actual -ais.

Long dip. > short before C

o:i > u:

> > The change of I>E occurred word-final after n
> >(and morpheme final (or sim.) in gnEzdo).
> > The change of U>E occurred word-final after w
> >so, final -wos>wU>vE.
>
> Nsg. *-wos gives plain -vU.

Again, this is simple analogy. The dual > vE
is evidence enough, no room for ana. there.

> > After os>us analogy would allow u-stem nom. -ux
> >to become -us, etc. Similarly as jus>jux
>
> What form is that?

Since *nos > *nus > ny there must have been analogy
nus/jux > nux/jux in pl. pronouns before *jux was
replaced. The existence of second person plural
*jux in PIE is fairly certain.

> >so nos
> >>nus>nux>nu:>ny. With no direct analogy (its
> >origin as a nom. forgotten) -tis>tix>ti:>ti.
> >
> > Threre is optional contamination of -si > -sis
> >explaining -six>si:>si.
>
> What forms are those?

You're the one who wrote them in the context
of your theory:

> >--- Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Not usually considered in this context, but worth
> >> taking a
> >> look at:
> >>
> >> - the 2sg. athematic ending -si (if from *-saj)
> >> - the infinitive ending -ti (if from *-taj)

I take them as -sis and -tis; there is no reason
to derive -ti from *-tai when Baltic -tis exists.

> > The Greek evidence is probably nothing more than
> >sandhi (oi#V > oj#V, etc.) since the limitation is
> >relatively late.
>
> The point is that _some_ -oi, -ai endings count as
> short,
> others as long. So it's not sandhi.

Why? There are completely certain cases of
languages with sandhi different before C and V
that have analogy so

oi#a oi#t
oy#a oi#t

with this variation the tone would be different
depending on the following word. One set of
forms retains one tonal pattern, the other the
other. It may simply depend on which are most
often found before V (or any other word without
a pause).





____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com