--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-03-19 23:16, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Why long-a in Latin Acc. na:rem ? All your accusative forms
quoted
> > above have a SHORT-a.
>
> Lat. na:rem < *na:s-i-m is the acc. of a secondary i-stem (nom.sg.
> na:sis), with the generalised strong-case vocalism of the original
root
> noun (not directly preserved in Latin).
>
> Piotr
>
You 'can Only suppose' this 'generalised strong-case', isn't it?
But you cannot prove it, because the long-a: in gen.sg. na:ris <
*nh2sos is regular, The Nom. is regular, ONLY The Acc. Sg. with long-
a: is NOT REGULAR
To quote yourself here: "So is Ad-Hoc".
To be honest, Piotr, this 'generalised strong-case', seems for me
a 'weak-argument'...
Weak, because you can never argue with valid arguments: when 'such
generalization' happened and when not....when the i-stem appeared
(earlier or later)..etc...
Marius