Re: [tied] Baltic *-ing-

The regular retraction of stress from a weakened yer (pre-Slavic *-inós > *-ÍnU) accounts for the pattern you mention. The expected development of hypothetical *-ingo- in Slavic would of course be different. However, the similar distribution of Slavic *-In- : Lith. -ing- is interesting and calls for an explanation. (But what about Lith. -i`ni- as in <vakari`nis> or <z^iemi`nis>? Don't they correspond to *vec^erInU, *zimInU ?)

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Sergejus Tarasovas

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 4:37 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] kuningas <-> knyaz

--- In cybalist@......, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@......> wrote: > The original acute accent might be due to Winter's Law (as if from pre-Baltic IE *-n-g-). But it doesn't seem to have any Slavic cognates, which wakes up the sceptic in me. Has anyone investigated its origin on a comparative basis?

I should consult the literature - I don't know. As for the Slavic I'm afraid it will sound heretically but why good old Slavic -In- doesn't fit (or at least some instances of it)? Ideed, cluster like -ng- with its falling sonority had to be eliminated in Proto-Slavic. The oldest accentuated texts often show -In- it was stressed (slavI'nU). Last not least, Lith. doesn't know adjectival ( <subst.) -in-, but it knows -ing- instead. *slavInU : s^lovi`ngas, why not a parralel?