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

From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 32125
Date: 2004-04-21

> From: Sergejus Tarasovas [mailto:S.Tarasovas@...]

> 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)

This seems to be paralleled by the development of BSl. *a:: in Sl. and Lith.
(*a:-stems G.sg.):

(Sl.) *-ah2as > (-s analogicaly replaced by -x, as is often the case in Sl.)
*-a::x > ("raising of superlongs") *-o:x (/x#/ [h#]) > (Slavic raising
before [-h#], otherwise *u < *o: would be expected) *-u:(h) > *-y.
(Lith.) *-ah2as > *-a::s > (no raising) -ãs (no * since that /a:/ survives
in the dialects) > (Standard Lith.) -õs

There seems to be no raising after *j in Sl. (*-ja::x > *-ja:x [-jæ:h] >
*-je^ ~ *-jeN, the nasalized variant being analogically introduced from
accusative?)

Unfortunately, I've got no idea what to do with Sl. *a:-stems Acc. pl.
*-ah2ms > *-á:ms > ... > *y. Even if u:N(s) > *-y is regular, a double
raising "before nasal" and "before s" somehow doesn't make me happy, and
again *j blocks the rasing (*-já:ms > *[-jæ:] ~ *[-jæN] > *e^ ~ *eN ).

Sergei