From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 28366
Date: 2003-12-11
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:Thanks.
>
>> The plural doesn't fit either. *-oisu+en should have given
>something like
>> *-aise, not -uose (*-o:s-en). It's as if *en had been added to the
>acc.pl.
>> (also works in the a:- and i-stems: *-a:(n)s-en > -ose, *-i:(n)s-en
>>
>> -yse). But the accusative doesn't work in the singular.
>>
>
>I've just checked Zinkevic^ius' _A historical grammar of Lithuanian_.
>For the o-stems he offers *-ei > (East Baltic monophthongization
>under certain prosody-related conditions) *-e.: (long narrow [e:.])
>*én > (contraction) *-én > -è. For the plural, his analysis is the
>same as yours (he quotes a lot of historical/dialectal material which
>leaves little room for the alternative analyses, plus the locative
>plural's accusative is paralleled by the illative plural, undoubtedly
>underlied by the accusative).
>
>Interestingly enough, he quotes historical/dialectal material
>demonstrating the old ("true") form of the locative plural for every
>stem (
>a:-stems _s^akosù_ 'branch-Lpl'
>o-stems _keturíesu_ '4-Lpl' (íe < *é.: < (East Baltic development,
>cf. _víenas_ 'one')*-oi-), cf. Standard Lithuanian (analogical)
>_keturíese_ 'four (of us)'
>i-stems _akisù_ 'eye-Lpl'
>u-stems _dangusu_ 'heaven-Lpl' (found thrice in Maz^vydas's texts,
>though it's remains unclear whether the first _u_ indeed renders a
>short vowel here, and if it doesn't, it can't be an archaism, but is
>rather to be interpreted as a Low Lithuanian innovation)
>C-stems _s^un(i)sù_ 'dog-Lpl'
> ), so probably the whole innovational (postpositional) locative=======================
>question is of little relevance for the reconstruction of proto-Balto
>(-Slavic) locatives.