Re: [tied] IE genitive

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

> > 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.

At least most of the examples I have seen fall under such a
headline. When -íV- loses its syllabicity and therefore (or
presumably even before then) retracts the accent, the syllable now
accented receives a falling tone; if it had been falling already,
nobody speaks about it, but if it had been rising it is called
métatonie douce. If substantivizations create barytone variants late
enough, the result has a falling tone. Also Slavic loans have
falling tone as an almost general rule in Lith. An old
substantivization like gývis 'living creature' has the expected
acute, while a late retraction caused gy~vis 'liveliness', the
semantics still revealing which is old and lexicalized and which is
young and productive.

>
> > 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.

Okay, why did you ask? Where do we see the latter rule at work? But,
wait a minute, how can "_# ... in monosyllables" apply to the uo of
duo~s which is not final? Or am I misinterpreting the modality of
your sentence?

> > 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).

Thank you for the nice support.

> ...
> >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?

Yes, what kind of morphology would that be? If there is an
underlying vowel in a suffixal segment //-es-//, the nom.sg. ought
to be *néh2-o:s. And why would *nh2es- be realized as a monosyllabic
sequence?

> > 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>).

I don't think that is a rule. It did not work in pu:rus, se:rus,
va:rus. I rather assume shortening of '-son' and '-man' in
compounds, e.g. family names, and generalization of the shortened
variant from there.

> > 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).

I fail to see this as an obstacle - why can't they all reflect *tl-?

Jens