Re: [tied] Baltic evidence for *sW-?

On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 18:57:06 -0000, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> My specialty is not hydronyms and other toponyms, which is why I
>> didn't feel replying to that message would contribute much. Also, I
>> was thinking the Baltic reflex of phoneme *X had to be simple *s, at
>> least I think the loc.pl. always has /s/, and the 2sg. active is of
>no
>> use, as it has been replaced (presumably by an ending abstracted
>from
>> *es-sei, interpreted as *es-ei). But I had forgotten about Lith.
>> <s^es^ì> (and OPr. <uschts>!), so there may be something to it after
>> all. <S^eduvà> as "the running" vel sim. does make obvious sense...
>
>I didn't mention <s^es^i`> explicitly because by some reason I
>thought you assume *sW > Baltic *s^ by default (it would be logical
>for the reflexes of *sW and *[RUKI]s to merge in Baltic if they did
>that in Slavic). But why your theory should predict Baltic *s<*sW (if
>you haven't changed your mind yet)?

I don't know if I have changed my mind on Baltic. The reason why I
thought Baltic *sW > s was given above (the loc.pl.). Also the
general laxness of Baltic in observing Pedersen's RUKI Law (e.g. the
-e,s , -usio participle). What's the evidence again for RUKI in
Baltic?