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

----- Original Message -----
From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:53 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
> <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>
> [JER:]
> > > And there's the
> > > heavier jer reflex in Slavic.
> >
> > So you too accept this special jer? I've been sure it was a Dybo's
> > idiosyncrasy. But do you accept its phonemic status? And if you
> do,
> > doesn't it look a bit lavish for the Common Slavic to reserve a
> > special phoneme for one and only morpheme?
>
> Well, actually yes, but what else could it be? Could it be a
> sequence of two? I have no opinion on Serbo-Croatian /-a:/ which
> sits on the form without any apparent influence on the syllable
> structure, looking very much like a secondary addition. I would
> however like to know better how it found its place in the living
> language.

I already explained that. It is clearly an innovation, and it can be traced
to *-&x < *-7x7. No need for superlong jers.

Mate