Re: [tied] nominative plural

As Proto-Germanic did not distinguish /o/ and /a/, long or short, I would
expect it to be [O] (as English 'awe'). The /z/ was almost certainly
originally /s/ - presumably voiced by Verner's law. Miguel argues that it
was originally [t'] (soft t), but that was before Proto-IE.

The lack of distinction between /o/ and /a/ is why we have Proto-Germanic
tanþ- > OE to:þ 'tooth' when nasals were dropped (with compenstory
lengthening) before voiceless fricatives in the Anglo-Frisian group.

The 'i' in -an-(i)z was _dropped_ later.

Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael J Smith" <lookwhoscross-eyednow@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] nominative plural


> Sorry to bother you again with a naive question, but would -o:z be
> pronounced with a long o - ohz/oez, and was the z originally an s? And
> does the i in parentheses you mention in -an-(i)z, was that added later?
>
> -Michael