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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?


> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:37:32 +0200, Mate Kapovic
> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
> >From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
> >>
> >> According to general phonetic principles, /r/ normally
> >> doesn't have a closing effect on a preceding vowel, on the
> >> contrary, it usually has an opening effect. This is quite
> >> unlike /n/ (or /m/), which _do_ have a closing effect. If
> >> the underlying ending had been -e:r, and assuming -r is
> >> lost, I would expect the outcome -e^, which is normal for
> >> word-final -e: (e.g. 1du. p.p. ve^ < *we:).
> >>
> >> So there has to be another way to explain the -i: of
> >> *ma:ti:, *dUkti:, and I see no other option than superlong
> >> -e::, the sandhi-form with (PIE) loss of -r. This can then
> >> also be used to explain -u: in kamy, although there we can
> >> also have the alternative explanation of narrowing of /o:/
> >> to /u:/ caused by final -n.
> >
> >Sorry, but these "superlong" everything just don't cut it for me...
>
> And this is based on what? You don't believe in
> compensatory lengthening?
>A form like *swéso:r had a long
> vowel (because of Szemerényi lengthening). The sandhi-form
> *swésõ: then lost the -r with compensatory lengthening,
> resulting in "super-long" (circumflex) -õ:. I don't see
> what the problem is, especially since sesuõ: and dukt~e: is
> exactly what we find in Lithuanian.

So what? kamy could also be from pre-ProtoSlavic *Hakmo:ns (like in a.
pl. of o-stems) where the *-s is analogical for older *-o:n which is
reflected as -uo~ in Lithuanian. This is an easy solution and we need only
to assume that *-o:ns > -y and with your solution we also have *-o:ns > -y
but "superlong" *-o:: > -y as well. Of course "superlong" vowels include
r-stems as well in their explanation...

Mate