--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
> I've been doing a preliminary inventarisation of Slavic Auslauts in
> -Vs, -VN (i.e. -Vm or -Vn[t]) and -Vns [mainly nominal forms], and I
> think the rules can be formulated as follows:
>...
I've practiced rule-set creations for Slavic auslaut since my teens.
Every result I got was full of stretches and exceptions to such an
extent that the rules were losing their explanatory power completely.
Your try is not an exception, you can easily point out the weak
points yourself. To add some fresh blood, how would you interpret
Krivichian (non-standard ORuss) o-stems N. sg. ending -e (not -U)?
> [6] normal development (D sg. o-stems): -o:i > -uo [> -u]
Interestingly enough, if your explanation of the origin of o-stems D
sg. is accepted, this example will clearly point out different
interpretations of *o: and *a: in some positions in PSlavic:
a:-stems D. sg. *-a:i > *e^
o-stems D. sg. *-o:i > *u.
;)
Sergei