Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view
From: Sergejus Tarasovas
--- In email@example.com
, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> The ending of the o-stem (thematic)
> ablative can be shown to have been long (*-o:t), and in fact can be
> shown to have been contracted from *-o-Vt (because Lithuanian has a
> circumflex accent, not an acute: Gen. (< Abl.) rãto < *rotHõ:(t) vs.
> Ins. ratù < *rotHó:).
Or < *rotHoh1 (BTW, the place of the Lithuanian ictus is not decisive
here as to the place of the PIE one because of Saussure's
retraction)? Do you believe genuine (not resulting from contraction)
long vowels yield acute in Lithuanian even in laryngeal-free and non-
Winterian contexts (at least word-finally)? Why do we have circumflex
in the N.sg. of consonantal (<dukte:~>, <akmuo~>) and -e:-
(<kate:~>) stems, 3 praes. of -a:- stems (<lai~ko>) and 3 praet. of -
a:- (<riñko>) and -e:- (<lai~ke:>) stems? A contraction of what?