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

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:36:29 +0200, Sergejus Tarasovas
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>> 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

Ingenious.

>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?)

This would divorce the soft ending -jeN from the hard one
(-y), except for West Slavic -je^. But since the acc.pl.
shows the same distribution -je^/-jeN, and the nasal is
inescapable there, I still prefer the old fashioned
explanation that -a:(:)s mutated to *-a:ns generally in
Slavic.

>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 ).

I don't know. I'm happy enough with the double raising. We
have something of the same thing in the dat.sg./ins.pl.,
where *-o:i(-) is first raised to *-u(:)i(-) (> *uo in
Slavic), and *uo is raised again to *u: before -h in the
ins.pl.

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