Re: [tied] Re: Caland [was -m (-n)?]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> >> and adjectives in -ró?  Can a mere 10% relict forms keep such a
> >> phonologically non-obvious historical connection alive synchronically?
> >
> >You seem to forget about all the many ro-adjectives that were in keeping
> >with the rule. That raises the percentage to a lot more than ten.
>
> You haven't understood what I meant.

I rather think it is the other way round. I do not think there are 10 %
relic forms, on the contrary I estimate there are some 10 % *innovative*
forms with the "wrong" suffix, i.e. with *-ro- combined with a sonant
nucleus, or *-u- after a vowel (vocoid) nucleus.

>
> >Lithuanian has done the opposite: *dhub-ró- -> dubùs, so there must have
> >been an association.
>
> Ok. What was it?

The fact that they are old allomorphs which mean the same, used as they
both are to form primary adjectives, orginally distributed according to a
phonetic principle that had came about by a sound change which later
ceased to operate, thereby allowing new forms or variants defying the old
distribution. If the allomorphs had begun to be confused already before
the dissolution of the protolanguage why would that confusion not continue
into the daughter languages? That's what I believe happened.

Jens