From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 22888
Date: 2003-06-09
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:No, _always_ -ai (whether acute or circumflex).
>
>> 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.
>
>Sorry, I don't follow. Were you assuming *-a:i gave *-ai~ with a
>circumflex?
>That's not what we observe in the verbal endings II can't think of any *-a:i-'s now, except in the Auslaut.
>mentioned (a:-stems' D. sg. is quirky: the ending behaves like a
>circumflexed one as to the Saussure's law, but the broken/acute tone
>of Z^emaitian pronouns like [tâ:(i)] ~ [tá:(i)] points to an old
>acute). Would you please elaborate on that marking the accents
>explicitly?
>
>> Any cases of *-a:i- > -ie-?
>
>First of all, what would be the source for (Baltic) *-a:i-?
>Tautosyllabic *-eh2i-?