Re: [tied] Re: Lith. Acc.pl.

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:03:23 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >   The working of Saussure's Law is quite shallow, but not absolutely
> >automatic on the surface, cf. esp. the plural cases dat. ran~koms, ins.
> >ran~komis, loc. ran~kose. These must have been formed in opposition to
> the
> >endstressed forms of the mobile type, z^iemóms (older -omùs), z^iemomìs,
> >z^iemosè.
>
> Hmm.  Isn't that simply because Saussure's Law doesn't operate across
> _two_
> syllables?

No, the type válgyti is opposed to darýti (acute on y, in case it doesn't
show at your end), so why should ran~komis be barred from becoming
+rankómis except by analogy? I'm making up this rule, it's common opinion.

Jens