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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 3:53 PM
Subject: 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.

Again, Slavic dropping the *-r# here is hardly relevant.

Mate