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

On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:45:22 +0200, Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:

>So, you postulate something like that:

"Postulate" is a big word for a set of guesses.

>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).

There's the case of Dsg. *-õ:i > -ui(~) vs. Ipl. *-õ:is > -ai~s, which also
shows different results depending on whether it's in abolute final position
or not.

>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,

As to *V'R, the only source I imagine are cases of acute *oy/*ow/*ey/*ew
versus circumflex *oi/*ou/*ei/*eu. Short vowel + *n *m *l *r always gives
a circumflex diphthong, no?

>*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?)

The old locative is *-oi(~), so there are vacillations there too...


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