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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

> >Again, Slavic dropping the *-r# here is hardly relevant.
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't know if the dropping of *-r
> is normal in Slavic.

Dropping *everything* in final position is normal in Slavic.

>The -r is there in bratrU, from PIE
> *bhra:to:r (but perhaps rather from acc. *bhra:trm.),

Bratr7 is most certainly not from *bhreh2te:r directly. The stem *bra:tr-
was taken and it became a regular o-stem noun with the r-stem declension
lost (we would expect something like **brati, bratere). Another form is
brat7 - this can be just a simplified bratr7 or it could be argued that it
was analogically made from original *brati < *bra:te:r (like *mati <
*ma:te:r) in order to regularise.

> and
> it's there in sestra (Lith. sesuo~) < *s(w)éso:r, but that
> may well be a compromise between *seso: > *sesa and acc/obl.
> *sesr- > sestr-.

And of course it is. *s(w)eso:r can hardly give sestra.

> The narrowing of -e:(r) to -i: is similar to the narrowing
> of -o:(n) to -u:. The forms without -n, -r, if I understand
> Jens correctly, have circumflex accentuation, i.e. they're
> superlong (-o:n vs. -o::, -e:r vs. -e::), so perhaps the
> narrowed Slavic reflexes -u: > -y and -i: > -i do in fact
> both point to sandhi-variants without final sonorant. I
> don't see how you could get -e:r > -i otherwise.

Why not? We have no other examples, why is *-e:- > *-i:- in front of *-r# in
last syllable unacceptable?

Mate