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

On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 15:24:05 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>...
>> So what we would expect in the masc. Npl. in Lithuanian is:
>>
>> noun adjective
>> o-stems jo-stems -ijo-stems o/a:-stems jo-/ja:-stems -ijo/-ija:-
>stems
>> *-ì *-(j)ì *-iai~ *-ì *-(j)ì *-iai~
>...
>I like your analysis (which implies the analogical levelling occured
>before the operation of Saussure's law, but this is hardly a
>problem), but may I ask a question: what makes you think *-íe is the
>expected outcome of PIE *-oy in Lithuanian? Have I missed something
>in your or Jens' postings?

My analysis was not meant to resolve the thorny issue of *ai and *ei in
Baltic. I think the expected outcome of acute *-oí in Lithuanian is -íe
(-ì), simply because that's what I observe in the adjectives that maintain
that ending. I also observe that circumflex *-joi~ (< *-ijoí) maintains
-(i)ai~. That fits in nicely with Slavic -i vs. -e^, but unfortunately we
can't check against the Baltic o-stem loc.sg. (Also, I'm _not_ saying that
*-oí- > -ie- and *-oi~- > -ai- applies in the Inlaut).

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