Re: [tied] IE genitive

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

> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen [mailto:jer@...]
> >
> >>The
> >> example is even so good as to be
> >> decisive: the Dehnstufe-to-circumflex theory is simply wrong.
> >
> > What _is_ the source for the Balto-Slavic circumflex then (except
> > *-V(H)V-)?
>
> Okay, in Common Balto-Slavic, I take it?

Yes, of course. I pressed <Send> and then realized I should have made
this qualification.

> That is, discounting Slavic
> mobililty and East Baltic accent retractions which produce

circumflex. The

> only category that remains seems to be that of monosyllables.

I wish I were provided with a reference to "The Big Book on East
Baltic Historical Accentology", where I could find all the relevant
material on how _all_ the non-<*V(H)V circumflexes in polysyllables
can be accounted for by accent retractions.

> There is
> ... Lith. tie~ (as opposed to geríe-ji),
> tuo~ (as opposed to gerúo-ju), ju:~s (as opposed to gen. jú:suN,

from

> where the variant jú:s can have taken its acute, while the reverse

in

> impossible);

...

> Lith. dúosiu dúosi dúosiva dúosita
> dúosime dúosite vs. 3rd person duo~s is almost too clear.
>

Of course, since the rule [+acute (on a vowel or /ie/ or /uo/) ->
[+circumflex]/_# is automatic in monosyllables (and the rule [+acute
(on /au/, /ei/ or /ai/) -> [+circumflex]/_# is automatic in both mono-
and polysyllables) in Lithuanian.

> Long monophthongs with acute in old polysyllables are (further)

seen in:

> Sl. *se^k-ti 'to cut' (SbCr. sj"ec´i)

A good example. Also Lith. (dial.) <i,sé:kti> 'dig' (if it belongs
here).

...

>Lith.
> nósis (from *na:s-i-, from IE root noun with the ablaut seen in Skt.
> na:s-/nas- 'nose, nostril' excluding laryngeals);

... because *neh2s- ~ *nh2es- is excluded in PIE?

> Lith. z^ve:´riN (without
> laryngeals, cf. Lat. ferus with short e);

I am aware of the rule *Hr > *r in Latin (cf. Lith. <výras> vs. Lat.
<uir>).

> Lith. loky~s, lókiN 'bear'
> (derived from làkti 'to lick' despite Kortlandt who finds the

connection

> semantically strange; the Slavs apparently didn't ask him before

they said

> medUve^dI).

But the Prussian lexeme can be reconstructed as *tla:ki:s
(Maz^iulis's "Etymological dictionary of Old Prussian", 2, 220), and
the Old Prussian and East Baltic lexemes can hardly be separated (-tl-
is prohibited by at least the Lithuanian phonotactis, being replaced
by -kl- word-medially and probably by l- word-initially).

> The important thing is that this is the only picture in which the

forms

> that are explained by the rule are the ones that could not well be
> analogical. I know there are variants almost everywhere; but if we
> discount what is productive and go by froms that are opposed to the
> general trend and to allied forms, then these rules present

themselves

> with great force.

Of course.

Sergei