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

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

> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 00:07:28 -0800 (PST), Sean Whalen
> <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel
> Carrasquer
> >> Vidal <miguelc@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> Because the merger a/o is Balto-Slavic.
> >
> > I think it's clear that the B-S words are
> >both from the same proto-form. That's why
> >I was using this example; to show that *wo
> >and *wa had different outcomes in Slavic
> >so the a-o merger didn't happen in proto-
> >B-S.
>
> Shoot, I forgot to make my point: we _know_ that *a
> and *o
> were different phonemes at one time, and into
> Balto-Slavic.
> We don't need your soundlaws (I use the term
> loosely) for
> that: we have the real thing. Winter's law lengthens
> *o to
> *o:, not to *a:.

I was not attempting to prove that o and a both
existed in PIE or PBS; I know that is already certain.

I was using one example to use as evidence that o
and a were still separate and subject to different
changes in the same environment in Slavic (after the
split with Baltic).

I don't know why the rules I have stated wouldn't be
considered "soundlaws" simply because I also need many
different analogies to make them work. However, I
feel I must say I will no longer respond to you here.




____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com