> From: Piotr Gasiorowski [mailto:piotr.gasiorowski@...]
> I have speculated before that in Slavic *r-stems we also see
> traces of
> *o:-raising:
>
> *kW(e)twó:r > *kW(e)two:: > *c^itu: (affecting analogically
> the reflex
> of *kWétwores);
>
> *(nekWto-)pto:r > *-p(t)o:: > *-pu: (hence, by analogy,
> acc.sg. *-pu:ri,
> adopted as the base of the remodelled paradigm).
>
Then there's no need to postulate different proto-forms for Sl. *kamy
(*h2akmo:n) and Lith. <akmuõ> (h2akmo::). Indeed, it seems that while *o::
have merged to *u: (>*y) in Sl. (*o: being lowered to merge to *a: > *a), in
Lithuanian both *o:: and *o: have merged to *o: (>/uo/, but *o:: always
yields circumflex), thus
(Sl.) *h2ak(^)mó:: > *káh2mo:: > *ká:mu: > *ka''my (a.p. a)
(Lith.) *h2ak(^)mó:: > > *akmõ: > <akmuõ> (a.p. 4)
(one must note, though, that due to the Sl. metathesis the Sl. and Lith.
forms differ accentologically, but I've got no idea as to the implications
of that difference on the development of the auslaut vowel).
Let's check the rule against the *o-stems G.pl. (assuming 1. it had
contracted *-oo- 2. which behaves like *o::):
(Sl.) *-oom > *-o::m > *-u:m > (regular merger of tautosyllabic *VR and
*V:R) > *-uN
(Lith.) *-oom > *-o::m > *-uõm (or *-uõn) > -uN~ (since +-uoN is impossible
in Lithuanian and *uo yields /u/ in contractions, like in Leskien's *-úo >
-ù or tautosyllabic *o:i > *uoi > ui).
It works. (?!)
Sergei