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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?


> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:54:39 +0200, Mate Kapovic
> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
> >> 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?
>
> According to general phonetic principles, /r/ normally
> doesn't have a closing effect on a preceding vowel, on the
> contrary, it usually has an opening effect. This is quite
> unlike /n/ (or /m/), which _do_ have a closing effect. If
> the underlying ending had been -e:r, and assuming -r is
> lost, I would expect the outcome -e^, which is normal for
> word-final -e: (e.g. 1du. p.p. ve^ < *we:).
>
> So there has to be another way to explain the -i: of
> *ma:ti:, *dUkti:, and I see no other option than superlong
> -e::, the sandhi-form with (PIE) loss of -r. This can then
> also be used to explain -u: in kamy, although there we can
> also have the alternative explanation of narrowing of /o:/
> to /u:/ caused by final -n.

Sorry, but these "superlong" everything just don't cut it for me... There
has to be a more reasonable solution to *-e:r > *-i.

Mate