Re: [tied] [j] v. [i]

On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:48:17 +0200, Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:

>> From: Miguel Carrasquer [mailto:mcv@...]
>
>> We must asssume it for PIE, where the o-stem loc. sg. *-oi is
>> distinguished from the n.pl. *-oy (Slavic -e^ vs. -i).
>>
>
>Actually, you are postulating *-oi have yielded BSl. *-ai while *-oy
>have yielded BSl. *-ei, aren't you?

No, I can't do that: plural -i as well as locative -e^ have 2nd
palatalization in Slavic, so it couldn't have been *-ei already in
Balto-Slavic.

>The latter (*-oy > *-ei) would
>nicely fit in well with Lithuanian facts, and it would fit even more
>nicely if you could also offer an explanation for the acute accent: *-oy
>> *-éi (?), if we take the evidence from the definite adjectives
>(<ge~ras> ~ <geríeji>) at face value, the problem, though, being that
>the ending doesn't attract the ictus from unacuted syllables (<la~pas> ~
><la~pai>; the circumflex accent in <vilkai~> itself is not a problem
>since -ái# > -ai~, -áu# > -au~ is an automatic phonological rule in
>Standard Lithuanian).

I can't understand why Lith. has -ì in the adjectives (except those in
-iai), but -ai~ in the nouns (and -ie~ in the pronouns).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...