Re: [tied] a:/o: merger

Even in Germanic, *a: > o: need not be very old if Silva Ba:cenis was Beech Forest. What I mean is that there was no "Common North European" merger of *a: and *o: (as opposed to the corresponding short vowels).

Piotr

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

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 11:29 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] a:/o: merger

--- In cybalist@......, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@......> wrote: > *a: and *o: did _not_ merge in Balto-Slavic. They merged in Proto- Slavic and, independently, in _some_ Baltic dialects (Old Prussian). Even standard Lithuanian, in which *a: > o:, keeps it different from *o: > uo. > > Piotr > To be pedantically precise, 1. merged in some, not all, positions in Old Prussian. 2. merged in most Samogitian (^zemai~c^iu,) dialects of Lithuanian as well (*a:, *o: > uo or even u:). 3. And of course we all know of that quirks in Proto-Slavic which formally don't let us state they merged in a sense '*a: and *o: reflexed equally in all equivalent positions' (cf., eg, *-a:n > *<o,>, while *-o:n > *y2). Sergei