--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
> As to *-o:n > -y, I have my doubts. I'd rather explain that through
> the influence of a (secondary) -s [> -h] (ka:mo:ns > kamy), cf.
> a:-stem Acc.pl. -a:ns > -y [or even Gsg. and Npl. -a:s > -y].
> And thematic 1sg. -/o:+m/ > -/o,/
I sympathize to Kortlandt's interpretation as well. There are some
moments which don't let me accept it 100%, though.
1. Secondary -s in *-o:n/-en- stems looks a bit ad hoc-ish.
2. One is forced to accept that *s influenced a vowel even 'through'
a plosive (like in *-onts; *-onts>*-ons solution is possible, but in
turn must be argumented).
3. G. sg resp. N. pl. of -ja-stems makes *y < *-a:s interpretation
for a-stems problematic. OCS and standard ORuss reflexes (-je, and -
je^, respectively) point to something like *-j-a:ns a proto-form
(analogical explanation is nice but carries more entropy than
information as can be easily tailored to explain nearly everything).
Thus we have to conclude *s could only shift a vowel to a higher
position with a little help of preceding *n (why? was that the *s
that really mattered?).
4. The origin of Slavic th. 1 sg. *-o, hasn't been established
reliably. <*o:m is not the only possible solution.
5. *s-shift is nice to explain *-os > *-U, but what about *nebo ,
*slovo etc? Of course prosodical moments can be envolved, but they
are quite shaky themselves.
6. Some Savic words (like *ryba and *myslI) can hardly be
etymologized without interpretation of their *y as *y2 < *o(:)n (cf.
*re,bU and Lith. manyti, mi,sle.~).
7. >h-like loss of s-endings is rather an unusual way for to do
business for IE languages. Are there any typological parallels for
[h] to trigger diffusiation of preceding vowels?
Sergei