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

On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:24:05 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:

>OK, but what about the 2 sg. of the a:-presents like <sakai~> or a:-
>preterites like <tapai~>? The fact that the ending attracts ictus
>from non-acuted syllables and bears broken or acute tone in
>Z^emaitian dialects points to historical acute (changed to circumflex
>by an automatic rule in Standard Lithuanian). Why didn't this *-ái
>develop into *-íe > *-ì? Yet another metatony?

I was assuming that *-a:i always gave -ai (e.g. Dat. sg. a:-stems), but now
that you mention it, perhaps standard opinion is that *a:i and *ai had
already merged early on.

Any cases of *-a:i- > -ie-?

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