Re: [tied] IE genitive

> >
> > 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?

OK, I didn't mean monosyllables (and /au/, /ei/ and /ai/ in auslaut) by
default. Sorry if I didn't mention it explicitly.

> Where do we see the latter rule at work?

Almost everywhere (the only problem here being my sloppy mistake
formulating the monosyllabic part of the rule, corrected in the next
posting: it doesn't matter whether the syllable is open or closed).

The acute->circumflex metatony is regular in monosyllables (that's why
we have, say, juo~s < júos or pro~ < pró (but <pró-> the prefix) etc.).
One'd better ask where we _don't_ see the rule at work. Well, all the
exceptions I am aware of have to do with pronouns' declinational
flexions : (eg., (Ins. sg. ) jà < já:, (Acc. pl.) jàs < já: and the
like) and are traditionally explained as analogical after polysyllables
(which is supported by dialects, where sometimes even the acute length
is restored on the analogy with definite pronouns; and if _this_ is not
an analogical restoration, then it's a failure of the Leskien's law,
which is extremely unlikely).

As for the polysyllabic part (+acute (on /au/, /ei/ or /ai/) ->
[+circumflex]/_# in both mono- and polysyllables), the examples are
rather trivial: <sakau~> 'I say' < *saká:u, <sakei~> 'you (2sg.) said' <
*sakéi, <sakai~> 'you (2sg.) say' < *saká:i).

> 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?

Sorry, I just misformulated the monosyllabic part of the rule. The rule
works both in open and closed syllables.

>
> > > 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-?
>

So you derive <làkti> 'to lick' from *tlakti? I can't evaluate such an
etymology out of hand. I want time to reflect.

Sergei