--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...> wrote:
> >which is from < *íe < *éi (*ey) or *ói (*oy, if one accepts *oi >
[some
> >not very certain prosody-related conditions] *ie in East Baltic )
(this is
> >rather for Mate than for you).
>
> This is also very strange. I cannot think of a reason why this
ending should
> have an acute. But this is not the only problem, why is the
development
> different from adjectival -i` and pronoun tie~?
>
The development of what?
If you meant "why does adjectival -i` differ from (pronominal) -
ie~?", then
*-íe# > -ie~ is regular in monosyllables (cf. the definite form
tíeji). Here's the Leskien-Endzeli:ns' law in its classical
(Endzeli:ns') formulation:
"word-final acuted long vowels and /ie/, /uo/ are shortened in
disyllabics and polysyllables, while in monosyllables (not shortened
due to their proclitic position) they - as well as word-final
acuted /ai/, /ei/ and /au/ -- change their acute to circumflex".
The exceptions are mostly illusory -- most of them are either of
secondary (tám, mán, sáu < tãmui, mãni(e), tãvi(e)) or analogical
(jái <- jai~ influenced by jám) origin.
If you meant "why does -ai~ differ from *-íe (> -ì, -íe-, -ie~)?" --
well, I don't know. As I wrote, if one accepts East Baltic *ai
(sometimes) > ie, one can suppose some different prosodical
conditions plus later generalization(s), yielding *-ái (nominal) ~ *-
íe (pronominal-adjectival) (both < *ái), the acute in *-ái being
converted to the circumflex (first in disyllabics, and generalized
later).
Sergei