Re: Lith.

From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 16084
Date: 2002-10-08

--- In cybalist@..., Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:

>...or that what is retained in the present-day
> tones is the prosody of the period corresponding to the older
> forms -enès, -erès, -ámus. Under the second option, the possibility
> -ámus (> -áms) has replaced an even older *-amùs would then have no
> bearing on the question since the form would be too old to be of
> relevance.

I'd vote for the second option. Zinkevic^ius even seems to insist on -
áms < *-ãmus <*-a`mus rather than -áms (directly) < *-a`mus, and
everybody here in Lithuania seem to be happy about metatony. Probably
we need a fresh look?