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

> From: Miguel Carrasquer [mailto:mcv@...]

> >(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.

Thanks.

> >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.

... except for West *and East Slavic* -je^ (Standard ORuss -je^, and
Krivichian even has that -e^ in the hard declension (<ruka> N.sg. ~ <ruke^>
(sic!) G.sg.), so there's no -y at all there!), so it would probably be more
appropriate to write "except for South Slavic -jeN". ;)
Of course I realize that my analogical explanation is weak and unverifiable.

> >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.

Yes, except that one wouldn't expect *s in *-á:ms to be replaced with *x (or
do you postulate any *s# yields [-h#]?). And was it *-o:i(-), not
*-o::i(-)? And if it was, why do we have circumflex in Lith. -ui (showing no
Saussure-Leskien; BTW, the Z^emaitian dialects have -ô.u (broken tone),
which points to *-o: (probably acuted, but I'm not sure), not *-o:i!) and
-ai~s? Jens is wrong about V: > acute?

Sergei