Re: IE genitive

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen

<jer@...>

> wrote:
>
> > You must mean cases of circumflex -y- and -u:- based on -i-/-u-
> > since other vocalisms would be fully capable of harbouring a
> > circumflex.
>
> Not only. I also meant cases like <skanùs> 'tasty' ~

<skõnis> 'taste'

> or *gèras (later Standard Lithuanian <ge~ras>, but not at the time

of

> the derivation) 'good (adj.)' ~ <ge:~ris> 'good (n.)'.
>
> The point sometimes missed by generic Indo-Europeanists is that

the

> way Standard Lithuanian reflects older (short stressed) *è and *à

(>

> e~, a~) has little or no support in dialects, even those (West
> Auks^taitian kaunis^kian) traditionally held the basis of the
> standard literary language. Indeed, nearly all the Auks^taitian

(sub)

> dialects reflect older *è and *à not with circumflexed vowels, but
> with vowels whose length is between that of (standard) è, à and
> (standard) e~, a~ and which bear _no_ pitch accent: they have
> _expiratory_ stress (marked with vertical tilde over the vowel in
> Lithuanian dialectological notation). West Z^memaitian dialects
> retained old shortness, most other Z^memaitian dialects retained

old

> short è and à before a long syllable; in other positions the
> development is basically the same as in Auks^taitian ones.
> Actually, Standard Lithuanian a~ and e~ look like an
> artificial "innovation", simplifying the prosodic structure of the
> literary language (eliminating half-long expiratory stressed

vowels

> and replacing it with circumflexed long vowels modelled after
> the "genuine" circumflexed vowels like e:~ and o:~).
>
> From all this one can conclude that at the time the metatony in
> question operated, *a and *e would _not_ be fully capable of
> harbouring a circumflex -- in the same way as i and u aren't

capable

> up to now.

Sure, I actually knew this, but wasn't thinking so deeply, since I
was just trying to get you to tell me what you were really asking
about. Now that you have, I am sure the answer is still the same,
i.e., yes, analogy. My reply was meant to say that i => y and u =>
u: are analogical with cases of e => e: and a => (a: >) o. The fact
that the parallellism is closer than you give most "generic Indo-
Europeanists" credit to realize only makes the analogy more obvious.
The best explanation of the length I have seen is that of
Kurylowicz, departing from set-roots: CeR&C CeRHV gave, first, Ce:RC
CeRV by regular phonetic development, then Ce:RC Ce:RV by levelling
(as in the prt. gé:re: 'drank'); when the accent was retracted to
such a sequence the result was a circumflex long vowel (as in
ge:~ris 'a drink'). This model was then generalized. Even so,
however, I find it a bit strange that the adjectives did the same as
the verbs. I can understand that a long vowel could spread from an
infinitive like gérti to its preterite; but what may have been the
locus of diffusion of the long vowel of plo~tis from platùs? I can't
verify the existence of an ingressive gìlti to go with gilùs 'deep',
but if the form is genuine, it would of course have contained a
long /-i:l-/ at one time, but could gy~lis 'deep spot' really have
taken its vocalism from there?

Jens