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

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

> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:42:11 -0800 (PST), Sean Whalen
> <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >--- 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?
>
> Because the merger a/o is Balto-Slavic.

I don't think so. If you believe it how do you
explain B-s *swopnos > svapnas and sUnU?

> But it's silly.

Since *s>x after i/u, why wouldn't it happen
w-final, too? Baltic and Slavic each turn *s. >
s in some positions; it needn't be the same in
each.

> >> >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;
>
> No. This clearly has nothing to do with -oi vs. -ai.

Every ending in -i > E in the a:-stems; the one
certain case of -oi > i. Since a: and o: merge
but final a:i and o:i don't it seems reasonable
to at least look at the possibility a/o hadn't
merged yet.

> >> > 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.
>
> But no room for *wos either.

What do you mean?

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

Yes, there are inf. in -ti and -tis. They come
from nouns in -ti- so this is nothing unusual.

> > 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).
>
> Why would, say, the locative and the nominative
> plural
> differ as to position before V?

I can't give percentages of occurrences in
a prehistoric language; it just seems more likely
the loc. was more often w-final or before a pause
and so the sandhi form that was generalized less
likely to end in -j.





____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL