Re: [tied] az+

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miguel Carrasquer [mailto:mcv@...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:35 AM
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tied] az+
>
>
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 16:37:26 +0200, Sergejus Tarasovas
> <S.Tarasovas@...>
> wrote:
>
> >BTW, what, IMO, is really irregular about the Balto-Slavic
> reflexes of
> >*h1eg^(om) are those on the Baltic side. The comparative evidence of
> >all the (including archaic and dialectal) material points to *es' <
> >*ez' with _short_ *e, different from the expected *é: (thus
> one would
> >expect Lithuanian <e:~s^> -- with monosyllabic circumflex -- rather
> >than attested (East Lithuanian) <ès^> (and the dialectal vacillation
> >between
> >a- and e- would also point to an original short *e).
>
> Does Leskien's law work on monosyllabic words?
>

The extended formulation (by Endzeli:ns) adds (among other things) "...
and was converted to circumflex in monosyllables". Cf., eg.,
prepositions like <prie~>, <nuo~> vs. prefixes <príe->, <núo->. Obvious
exceptions (found usually in pronouns) are mostly explained as
analogical. But did Leskien's law operate in Latvian? According to the
latest A. Rosinas' monograph on the history of Baltic pronouns, the
aggregate evidence of all the available Baltic material (including
archaic texts and dialects) points to Proto-Baltic *ez' (rather than
*é:z').

Sergei