Re: [tied] Definite adjectives: correction

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:17:40 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> Are such e(n)-less forms also attested for the loc.sg.?
>>
>> For the o-stems, I know there is nam-ie~.
>
>Also dial. _orie~_ 'out there' (_óras_ 'air; weather; open space'),
>_va~karie_ 'in the evening', _artie~_ 'close, near' (_ar~tas_ 'close
>(adj.)', now shifted to the u-stems: _artùs_, the shift still
>operating in the present-day Lithuanian), _tolie~_ 'far'
>(_to~las_ 'far (adj.)', cf. _tolíese_ 'far away' < *tolíesu 'far-
>LPl', now _tolùs_), _ankstie~_ 'early' (_an~kstas_); their Standard
>Lithuanian counterparts _artì_ (note an erroneus analysis in EIEC: <
>*i-stem *h2értis), _tolì_, _ankstì_ (-ì < *-íe < (eventually) *-ói),
>as well as the adessive forms like _mis^kíepi_ 'to the forest' (*-
>íe '-Lsg' *píe 'at, to') would point to the originally acuted *-íe <
>*-ói, the circumflex of _namie~_ being secondary. Any ideas on the
>origin of the acute?

It's a circumflex in Slavic (-ê < *-oï, not -i), but then the nom.pl which
is an acute in Slavic (-i < *-oy, not -ê) is a circumflex in Lithuanian
nouns and soft adjectives.

>> In the a:-stems Loc = Dat (-ai), as in Slavic?
>
>The ending is not directly attested, but the postpositional locative
>(-ojè < *-a:i *én) and adessive (-áipi < *-á:i *píe) unequivocally
>point to *-á:i -- with long acuted *-á:, while for the dative a long
>circumflexed *-ã:i is traditionally reconstructed, so, strictly
>speaking, L != D. Any ideas?

That makes sense. The loc. is -a: + -i (*-ah2i), the dative is -a: + -ei
(*-ah2ai), so "longer".

>> I have no idea what to expect in Old Lith. for the eu- and i-stems ?
>>Loc. sg.
>> *-e:u (*-o:u) and *-e:i.
>
>The "free" (unagglutinated) Lsg ending is not directly attested for
>the i-stems; archaic Lithuanian and dialects would point to -ije
>(thus most likely < *-i *én) as an older variant, and the adessive
>sg. of _akìs_ 'eye' (a C-stem shifted to the i-stems) is _akìpi_ (< *-
>ì 'Lsg' *píe), so the free form would be *-ì ( < *-íe < *-é:i ?). As
>for the u-stems, dialectal (Low) archaic Lithuanian still has -uõ
>(jè), -uõ probably being a normal phonetical outcome of PIE *-o:u (or
>what?).

These locatives owe their long vowel to some kind of "compensatory
lengthening" (*-ey-i > *-e:i, *-ow-u > *-o:u), so -uõ (like akmuõ <
*akmo:n) sounds right. The <ie> diphthong again has a mind of its own...
I don't get it.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...