Piotr wrote:Dear Sergei,1. The difference between *{i,u}R and *{i:,u:}R is quite well visible in Slavic intonations. As a matter of fact, it seems to be a common Balto-Slavic phenomenon (as well as resembling some Indic developments). Here are a few typical examples (*@ stands for the B-Sl reflex of a post-sonorant laryngeal, whatever it was, and *c, *3 for the B-Sl satem palatals, probably affricates):PIE *plHnos 'full' > *pil@... > *pi:lnas > Lith. pi`lnas, S-Cr. pu"n (cf. Skt pu:rna-)PIE *dlHghos 'long' > *dil@... > *di:lgas > Lith. i`lgas, S-Cr. du"g (cf. Skt. di:rgha-)PIE *grHnom 'grain' > *3ir@... > *3i:rna- > Lith. Zi`rnis 'pea seed', S-Cr. zr"noas opposed toPIE *wlkWos 'wolf' > *wilkas > Lith. vil^kas, S-Cr. vu^k (cf. Skt. vrka-)Apart from compensatory lengthening due to the loss of a laryngeal, *{i,u}R (as well as *{i,u}N) could undergo lengthening when followed by an IE "plain voiced" stop (Winter's Law), again both in Baltic and Slavic.2. I don't know the history of pósolon' (I wish I did; the form looks very interesting), but I suspect that the third o may represent a "spurious yer" added to an original *pósoln' < *pó-sUlnI as in ogon' 'fire' < *ognI (NOT *ogUnI; cf. Skt agni-, Latin ignis). Such epenthetic vowels often occur in stem-final clusters in Slavic. A similar case is Polish pełen 'full', a relatively recent innovation for earlier pełn (attested in older Polish; Russian still has poln).The examples are excellent (and in Lithuanian i in i`lgas is still pronounced definitely longer than in vil^kas), but as for Slavic, you used only South Slavic examples. Does it mean that we can find no traces of that phenomenon in other Slavic groups? My idea is that this "spuriosity" hides some regularity, as both pósolon' and pełen/polon (we don't have poln in today's Russian, at least) eventually reflect V:l?Sergei3. I think I have already given a tentatively positive answer to this one. The only problem I can see is the semantic difference between pushing and being pushed (one would have to propose a plausible scenario for a mediopassive origin of the Lithuanian verbs). And how about adding Slavic *CINst- 'often, frequent(ly)' (Russian chasto, etc.) and Lithuanian kim^Stas 'stuffed full' < ?*knt-tó- 'pushed, poked'? Is it far-fetched in your opinion?Piotr
eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
