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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:21 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapoviã <mkapovic@...> wrote:
> > The other possibility could be that *-n drops and that *-m doesn't.
>
> Yes.
>
> > It couldn't. *-o:n (> *-a:n) would give -oN, not -y. Same as *-a:n
> < *-a:m
> > gives -oN in A. sg of eh2-stems
>
> And yields circumflex in Baltic and (according to Dybo) in Slavic
> (vs. a regular acute in Acc. pl?)? Looks rather like a laryngeal-
> deletion (*-ah2m > *-am), whatever be its origin.

Stang's Law?

> And I'm not sure of this *-o:n > *-a:n thing (at least on the
> phonetical level), by the way. It could well stay [o:n]. As I've
> already argued, Proto-Slavic */an/, */am/ seem to be [on], [om]
> phonetically.

That sounds reasonable...

Mate