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

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:03:29 +0200, Sergejus Tarasovas
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>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. (?!)

I'd say *-oo- works like a:: not o:: in the abl. (> gen.)
sg., Slavic -a, Lith. -o~ (not *-uo~). Makes little
difference for Slavic, but Lith. would be:

(Lith.) *-oom > *-o::m > *-õm (or *-õn) > -uN~ (like a:-stem
G.pl. *-ah2om > -ãm > -õm > -uN~).


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