On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:35:16 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski
<
piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
>19-07-03 02:02, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> I don't think it really matters that much whether we reconstruct tonal or
>> syllabic oppoitions (*ó: ~ *õ:, *-oí ~ *-oi~ or *-o: ~ *-oo, *oy ~ *oï).
>
>It doesn't, but it's nice to keep hiatus as an alternative solution.
Come to think of it, it does matter slightly to me. If the PGmc. o-stem
ablative was still -aad, then that's one more argument in favour of Slavic
pronominal -ogo < *-oho < *-oo(d) (and -ego < *-eo(d)). It may also matter
to Lithuanian. The genitive in -o is obviously an ablative, but (as I read
on a website the other day and, silly me, I had never realized) *-o:~
should have given Lith. -uo not -o! Lith. -o can only go back to *-a:.
Fortunately, -a: is presumably just what uncontracted -aa gave in
Lithuanian when the ending finally contracted.
Now what about Lith. Gpl. -uN, Slavic *-U < *-oom?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...