On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:34:15 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<
gpiotr@...> wrote:
>You know what, Miguel? This collaborative result is more reasonable than any explanation of Slavic endings I've seen in the literature. It works in other respects, too, by accounting for *-a:s > *-a:x > *-u:x > *-u: > *-y and several other inflectional problems as well. There's nothing like a good dispute.
Indeed. Even in the more common case that no agreement is reached,
it's still worthwile (not to mention fun), if the dispute is good and
one can learn from one's "opponents".
To continue the discussion: what I'm missing in the above is the nasal
element that lurks somewhere in the development *-a:s > *-y. It's
obviously there in the acc. plurals *-a:ns and *-ons (as well as in
the n-stem nom.sg. -y < *-o:ns), but also, as you know, in the gen.sg.
and nom.pl. [if this is not the acc. form] of the a:-stems, judging by
the ja:-stem forms in -je~. At least in South Slavic (W. and E.
Slavic have *-e^).
We have:
n-stems nom.sg. *-o:ns > *-o:~s > *-a:~x
o-stems acc.pl. *-ons > *-o:~s > *-a:~x
a:-stems acc.pl. *-a:ns > *-a:~s > *-a:~x
a:-stems nom.pl. *-a:s > *-a:x
a:-stems gen.sg. *-a:s > *-a:x
In South Slavic, the two remaining distinct endings seem to have
merged as *-a:~x, by some kind of intrusive nasalization (recalling
Sanskrit forms like nom.pl. -(y/v)a:m.s-as from roots in *-yas and
*-was [i.e. comparatives and the pf.ptc.act.]).
For the rest, the hard forms developed as you say: *-a:(~)x > *-u:x >
*-u: > *-y.
The soft forms (whether in S. or W./E. Slavic) have *-ja:(~)x >
*-je:(~)x, which I find somewhat puzzling (unlike *ja > *je, *ja: does
not give *je:). Undoubtedly another effect of the *-x, but here
clearly raising rather than backing, as I had described it earlier.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...