From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 31858
Date: 2004-04-12
----- Original Message -----
From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 1:53 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Slavic neutra ending -o
> I understand mobility to be a thing that spread in the u-stems. In
> Lithuanian all u-stems eventually became mobile, but Dauks^a still
> has immobile u-stems.
Would that be dialectal Lithuanian súnus (a. p. 1) for instance?
> The failure of Hirt's law to produce initial accent was explained by
> Illic^-Svityc^ on the basis of end-stressed cases with a middle -u-
> between the root and the ending, as su:numìs, where the root could
> not take the accent because it was not on the following syllable. I
> find that explanation fully satisfactory.
Yes, but we also had *dhuh2momus (~ *suHnumus), *dhuh2moysu (~*suHnusu) the
only difference being u-stems have *suHnumiHs and o-stems having
*dhuh2mo:ys. But is that enough to assume a difference in analogical
behaviour?
Mate