On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:31:47 +0100, Mate Kapovic <
mkapovic@...> wrote:
>It is probably just an analogy to the soft stems and hence -i (via *-ey
>instead of *-oy) instead of intonation relevance. There's no reason
>whatsoever to assume that there was an acute intonation in Slavic -i in N.
>pl. o-stems or the imperative.
The soft stems of course have -(j)i everywhere (loc.sg., masc.nom.pl., n.
nom/acc. du.). Why should only the nom.pl. have been subjected to analogy?
From the point of view of PIE, we don't need to assume any kind of analogy:
the result in Slavic follows directly from the nature of the ending in
question:
the locative sg. is *-i
the non-masculine NA dual is *-ih1
the pronominal plural marker is *-y
the optative suffix is *-yeh1-
The first two begin with the vowel *i, the last two begin with the
consonant *y.
If we prefix the thematic vowel *-o- or the feminine suffix *-ah2-, we get:
masc.loc.sg. *-o-i > *-oï > *-e^
fem.loc.sg. *-ah2-i > *-aï > *-e^
n. NA. dual *-o-ih1 > *-oï > *-e^
f. NA. dual *-ah2-ih1 > *-aï > *-e^
masc.nom.pl. *-o-y > *-oy > *-i
2sg. optative *-o-yh1-s > *-oy > *-i
All regular, no analogy necessary.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...