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

I see no way of knowing. I have been accustomed to regard it as short, but
that is only because I cannot use the explanation I have figured out for
the length of Slavic -mi. I have accounted for -mi as due to influence
from the ending of the o-stems, which is -y in pure o-stems, and -i in
jo-stems, somehow reflecting *-o:~is. But if the original endings was
*-mi:s I do not need that support. Sanskrit -bhis shows and and OIr. -(i)b
demands a short vowel, but there is not a lot of evidence. Also the -u- of
OLith. -mus is unpleasant. I have guessed at influence from the o-stem
acc.pl. -us, i.e. a form just like OPruss. -mans, but I do not like to see
it being syncopated (and then again, what difference does it make what I
like?).

Jens

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 17:27:17 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> 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?
>
> Sorry for my confusion.  I forgot that -o- is a long vowel (and therefore
> potentially acute).
>
> On a related matter: is the final syllable of Ipl. -mìs historically
> acute (i.e.
> -mí:s > -mìs by Leskien's law, with long vowel as in Slavic), or is it
> historically short (as outside Slavic, with the possible exception of
> Avestan
> -bi:s^)?
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>