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

On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 21:33:11 -0000, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>
>> 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?
>
>Why Pedersen's (with all my respect to him)? As for at least Slavic,
>the rule is mentioned already in Miklosich's Etymologisches
>Wцrterbuch der slavischen Sprachen (1886, by the way, it's in that
>source where the sandhi explanation of *xod-:s^Id- appears for the
>first time). Holger Pedersen was just 21 at the moment.

Collinge calls it Pedersen's Law (I), not to be confused with
Pedersen's Law (II), which is one of those Balto-Slavic accent
thingies. Pedersen's article in IF is from 1895, so after Miklosich's
dictionary.

Where does Miklosich mention the RUKI-rule or the sandhi explanation
of *xod-:*s^Id-? Not under the lemma *ched-.

What he does mention there are a couple of curious forms with i-
(is^el, is^edl, is^ao, etc.). Where does *that* come from?

>[...]
>Nevertheless, in a more
>specialized literature (first of all _Stang Chr. S.: Vergleichende
>Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen, Oslo-Bergen-Tromsц,
>Universitetsforlaget, 1966, 94-100_ and especially Karaliu_nas S. "K
>voprosu ob i.-e. *s posle i,u v litovskom jazyke", Baltistica 1,
>Vilnius, 1966, 113-126__, optionally _Hamp E. P.: "On IE *s after i,u
>in Baltic", Baltistica 3, 7-11_) the folowing insights can be found:
>
>1. *{r,k}s > s^ is normal and nearly doesn't have exceptions; I'm not
>likely to copy a long and boring list of examples 'pro' (like Lith.
>virs^u`s (Acc. sg. vir~s^u,)), since this is plausible, and waiting
>of your counter-examples.
>
>2. *{i,u}s > {s,s^} is more trickier. UI-part fof the RUKI fails in
>the contexts {i,u}-sS and {i,u}s-S, where '-' is morphemic border and
>S stand for any sonorant (of course some minor irregularities can be
>found).
>
>Your exapmle matches this Karaliu_nas-rule conditions: -us-jo-.
>Have you changed your mind now?

I never doubted the RUKI-rule in Baltic as such, I just couldn't think
of any examples in morphology.