Re: [tied] Old Bulgarian izU

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 8209
Date: 2001-07-31

The most likely explanation I can think of is this: -- The _regular_ development of *eg^H(s) should have produced *es or *ez rather than *(j)Iz/*iz. But function morphemes such as prepositions (especially frequently used ones) don't always develop regularly. For example, Old Prussian has regular <en> 'in' (from PIE *en), but Lithuanian has <in> and Slavic has *vUn < *Un < *un, both looking like relatively recent (not even common Balto-Slavic) weak forms. Slavic *Iz and Baltic *is^ may be just such weak forms of late dialectal origin.

----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick C. Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Old Bulgarian izU

[Piotr Gasiorowski:]
... There are enough Slavic verbs like those below for the pattern to be quite clear:

1sg.       Inf.       Iterat.

*mIr-o~    *mer-ti    *mir-ati    'die'
*dIr-o~    *der-ti    *dir-ati    'tear'
*z^Im-o~   *z^e~-ti   *z^im-ati   'squeeze'
*Im-o~     *e~-ti     *im-ati     'take'

Here, only the infinitive *(j)e~ti shows the original vocalism (*em-); *Im- contains a secondary (Balto-Slavic) reduced grade (*Im- < *im-, cf. Lith. imu, imti), and the iterative the legthened variant thereof (*im- < *i:m-). *Im- is not a development of PIE *em- but a new form in a thoroughly restructured paradigm.

How then would you explain iz?