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

From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 22905
Date: 2003-06-09

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miguel Carrasquer [mailto:mcv@...]
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 1:52 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: [j] v. [i]

> >Sorry, I don't follow. Were you assuming *-a:i gave *-ai~ with a
> >circumflex?
> No, _always_ -ai (whether acute or circumflex).

So, you postulate something like that:

1. Proto-Lithuanian distinguished between four diphthongs: *V~R, *V'R,
*V:~R and *V:'R (R={*i,*u, sonorant}, ~ -- circumflex, ' -- acute).
2. then the Carrasquer's mutation (*-ái# > *-íe#) occured (not touching
*-á:i#, *-ãi# and *-ã:i, though).
3. the number of diphthong's types was reduced to two (since that's
what we have in the attested Lithuanian); obviously, *V'R merged with
*V:'R yielding *V'R, *V~R remained unchanged and *V:~R splitted into
*V~R and *V'R, depending on the dialect (or other conditions, hence,
probably, the quirks with the a:-stems D. sg. and ì ~ ei~ vacillations
in the old locative?) (I realize that the latter is not yours but mine
and is completely ad-hocish).