Re: a:/o: merger

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:

> The vocative is of course the first thing that comes to mind, but I
> don't think a nom./voc. merger it can explain all. Hard yer always
> goes to /o/ in Krivichian when unreduced?

By the time they were surely unreduced (second half of the 12th c.)
<o> is fixed at least graphically in normal positions (íf not to
mention qiurks-generating positions before /j/ and /C'/). But the
consistent usage of -e is registered for the earliest inscriptions
(first half of the 11th c), which contain virtually no traces of yers
falling-raising.

> I assume /e^/ to have been /íe/ (a falling diphthong), at least

after

> originally short /e/ had acquired a lengthened variant /e:/.

I was confused by 'lifting' /e^/ to /e/ (?)

Sergei