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

On Tue, 08 Oct 2002 12:42:10 -0000, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@..., "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>> > [-ms] is just that.
>>
>> Oops! I was thinking of the ran~koms at the moment. The third
>syllable
>> is [mIs] ([I] for non-tense ("short") /i/, more or less like
>English [I]
>> in <bit>).
>>
>> Sergei
>
>Thank you again, both for this and your account of Lithuanian stress
>and pitch. What I had hoped to find out was whether it made sense to
>tag the 'o' of '-omìs' as 'circumflex', but this now clearly seems to
>be a meaningless question for Standard Lithuanian.

One has to bear in mind that the contour of the standard Lithuanian pitches
(acute = falling, circumflex = rising) is reversed from what they likely were
historically [say, in Proto-Balto-Slavic] (acute = rising, circumflex =
rising-falling).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...