From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 16033
Date: 2002-10-08
--- In cybalist@..., Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:
[ST]> > Still asking (very prudently this time): if you assume that
Acc.pl. -
> > ìs, -ùs were historically short, why do we have North High
Lithuanian
> > Nom. sg. àkè.s (close [e.]) 'eye' (regularly < *-is) but Acc. pl.
> > àkìs (regularly < *-í:s)? If you agree they were long and beared
> > circumflex rather than acute accent (non-acutes means
circumflexes,
> > doesn't it?), how would you explain the shortening then?
>
[JER]> This actually confirms what I said, although I did not take
the time to
> check for it (I see now that Z^inkevic^ius' maps 20 and 23 show the
> difference, if only in a small area). I suggested that acc.pl. akìs
be
> derived from *akí:ns with analogical length-and-acute from
*vilkó:ns and
> *z^iemá:ns.
It was
> Acc.pl. -ìs, -ùs with non-acutes do indeed act like they were acute
>themselves, since they attract the accent.
that confused me. I though you meant "with _historical_ non-acutes
still act (as to the S-F law) as if they were acute". At least you
are now aware of this "Samogitian eye" example -- a Schulbeispiel
every student of Lithuanian is provided with here in .LT ;)
Sergei