Dear Piotr and Cybalisters:
----- Original Message -----From: Piotr GasiorowskiSent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 4:55 PMSubject: Re: [tied] Old Bulgarian izUThe 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.[PCR]In your opinion, could this unusual <i/I> be used to support the idea of an IE *i independent of that derived from *y?PatPATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@...
(501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA
WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/
and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html"Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío,
geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit,
hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)