Re: [tied] Definite adjectives: correction

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Definite adjectives: correction


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
> <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
> > "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".
>
> read
>
> "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/ *despite the number of syllables in the
> word* -- change their acute to circumflex".
>
>
> >the acute in *-ái being
> > converted to the circumflex (first in disyllabics, and generalized
> > later).
>
> read
>
> the acute in *-ái being converted to the circumflex by the Leskien's-
> Endzeli:ns' law. (The obvious problem with this explanation would be
> the question why there's no trace of the Saussure's law in N. pl. of
> barytona like pir~s^tai.)

Could the answer be that -i` in adjectives kept it's acute because it had a
variant when it was not in the last syllable - in definite forms (*-íeji)?
There was no definite forms in N. pl. of o-stems so the acute became
circumflexe there regurarly. We should therefore assume that the change of
*-ái > *-ai~ was over before de Saussures law. The difference in intonation
could be the reason the why we have different endings (-i` and -ai~). Or am
I wrong? I guess Sergei had something of this sort of thing in mind...