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

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:37:32 +0200, Mate Kapovic
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
>>
>> 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...

And this is based on what? You don't believe in
compensatory lengthening? A form like *swéso:r had a long
vowel (because of Szemerényi lengthening). The sandhi-form
*swésõ: then lost the -r with compensatory lengthening,
resulting in "super-long" (circumflex) -õ:. I don't see
what the problem is, especially since sesuõ: and dukt~e: is
exactly what we find in Lithuanian.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...