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

From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 32063
Date: 2004-04-19

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...> wrote:

> Croatian/Serbian -a: in g. pl. is an inovation which has nothing to
do with
> a "special long jer". As it is seen in some dialects, -a: is really
from
> *-&h with the -a(h) being legthened because of i-stems g. pl. -i: <
*-6j6
> and because of the length in g. pl. of adjecitves.
>

Could you explain your notation? What <h> is supposed to mean?

And what about the neo-circumflex in the G. pl., supposedly induced
by the longevity of the previuos syllable (as probably is neo-
circumflex in general)?

Dybo also lists Slovene (dialectal?) -รก as a possible direct reflex
of *-U:, though its not clear (from what I've got to hand) what
material he means exactly.

*I* am not arguing with you on that (the idea doesn't seem very
plausible to me as well). Just trying to make you argue with Dybo. :)

Sergei