Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:37:54 +0200, Sergejus Tarasovas
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>> From: elmeras2000 [mailto:jer@...]
>
>> How can you know they are not prioritising Lithuanian in the case of
>> r-stems, and the whole series Lithuanian-Germanic-Latin-Celtic in
>> the case of n-stems?
>
>By the way, positing *-o:(:) (and not *-o:n) as the protoform for Lith. -uõ
>one can easily solve the problem of Lith. *o-stems gen. pl. -u:~N (if from
>*-o:m):
>
>*-o:(:) > -uõ
>*-o:m > *-uom > -u:~N (Meillet's solution, if I'm not mistaken). No need for
>Kortlandt's sophistry.
>
>That doesn't work for Slavic (*kamy not +kama), which may well reflect *-o:n
>(with regular narrowing before *n) in that case, though.

And finding both *-o: and *-o:n in Balto-Slavic (what's
more: finding both *-o:n (kamy) and *-e: (mati) in Slavic),
suggests that they are in fact sandhi variants.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...