--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...> wrote:
> > 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)?
But the acute was kept regulary. Again, the Leskien's-Endzeli:ns' law:
1. *-íe#, *-úo#, *-é:#, *-éN#, *-á:#, *-áN#, *-í:#, *-íN, *-ú:#, *-
úN# > -ì, -ù, -è, -è, -à, -à, -ì, -ì, -ù, -ù in disyllabics and
polysyllables;
2. *-íe#, *-úo#, *-é:#, *-éN#, *-á:#, *-áN#, *-í:#, *-íN, *-ú:#, *-
úN# > -ie~, -uõ, -e:~, -eN~, -õ, -ãN, -y~, -i~N, -u:~, -u~N in
monosyllables, except when a monosyllabic was shortened due to its
proclitic position;
3. *-áu#, *-ái#, *-éi# > -au~, -ai~, -ei~ regardless of the number of
syllables in a word, except when a monosyllabic was shortened due to
its proclitic position.
Adjectives are never monosyllabic in Lithuanian, and íe is not áu, ái
or éi, thus *-íe# > -ì.
> There was no definite forms in N. pl. of [substantival - ST] o-
stems so the acute became
> circumflexe there regurarly.
There were ones! Cf. (in the normalized transcription) archaic
Lithuanian: dangujéNjis 'heavenly (m)', lit. 'heaven-Lsg-def-m' (<
*dangujéN 'heaven-Lsg indef.' *jìs 'he'), dangu~Njis 'heavenly (m)',
lit. 'heaven-Gpl-def-m' (< *dangu~N 'heaven-Gpl-indef' *jìs 'he'),
dial. dievõji 'divine (f)', lit. 'god-Gsg-def-f' (< *dievo 'god-Gsg-
indef' *jì 'she'; note the stress!). It's a pity no substantival
definite forms for the *o-stems N. pl. are registered -- it would
have answered many questions.
> We should therefore assume that the change of
> *-ái > *-ai~ was over before de Saussures law.
Highly improbable, IMO, since other examples of the operation (of the
relevant -- 3rd -- part) of the L-E law show it was fed by de
Saussure's law: cf. sukau~ 'turn-1sg-praet' < (L-E 3) *su'káu (cf.
dial. (Low Lithuanian) so.kâu) < (de S) *'sukáu, sukai~ 'turn-2sg-
praes' < (L-E 3) *su'kái (cf. dial. (Low Lithuanian) so.kâ:) < (de S)
*'sukái etc.
> The difference in intonation
> could be the reason the why we have different endings (-i` and -
ai~).
Impossible for the time *after* such a late phenomenon as the L-E
law. The *ai > ie (even if indeed observed mostly in acuted
syllables -- see below) is a (Proto-)East Baltic phenomenon
(affecting Latvian as well).
> Or am
> I wrong? I guess Sergei had something of this sort of thing in
mind...
For me, the whole *o-stems Npl ending controversy (-ai~ vs. -íe)
boils down to
1. why circumflex vs. acute and
2. why /ai/ vs. /ie/
(1) can be explained by some metatony along the lines of the L-E but
operating before de S (not very probable, IMO).
for (2) the point can be raised to "why in general *ai > ie in East
Baltic?" Indeed, why Lith. víenas, Latv viêns 'one' < *(h1)oi(H)nos
(cf. OPruss ains), Lith. snie~gas, Latv. sníegs 'snow' < *snóigWHos
(cf. OPruss snaygis), Lith. bríedis, Latv. briêdis 'elk' (most
likely) < *bHroidi(o)- (cf. OPruss braydis), Lith. piemuõ 'herdsman'
< *poHimén- (cf. Finnish Baltism paimen 'herdsman'), Lith. líesas,
Latv. liêss 'lean, thin', most likely < Baltic *láis- in spite of
Finnish laiha 'lean' (cf. Finnish seinä 'wall' < Baltic *séin-, Lith.
síena 'wall', probably with "genuine" ie < *ei)? Nobody seems to know.
Sergei