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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?


> 21-04-2004 01:21, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> >>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.
>
> Superlong vowels are fairly rare cross-linguistically, but to the extent
> that they do occur, compensatory lengthening in final syllables (where
> quantity is universally less constrained than in other positons) is what
> seems to produce them most frequently; cf. the overlength produced by
> loss of final /-e/ in Low Saxon and Limburgish. From the point of view
> of phonetic typology, the kind of overlengthening suggested in this
> thread is fairly natural.
>
> I have speculated before that in Slavic *r-stems we also see traces of
> *o:-raising:
>
> *kW(e)twó:r > *kW(e)two:: > *c^itu: (affecting analogically the reflex
> of *kWétwores);
>
> *(nekWto-)pto:r > *-p(t)o:: > *-pu: (hence, by analogy, acc.sg. *-pu:ri,
> adopted as the base of the remodelled paradigm).

I have to say I like the explanation for Slavic c^etyre. This also gives
some weight to the superlong-vowel theory for Slavic.

What about -u in D. sg in Slavic? Some, like Solta, have assumed that PIE
o-stem D. sg *-o:y had a sandhi variant *-o: because of Latin D. sg -o: and
this PIE *-o: would go with Maz^iulis who claims that -uo is
the original D. sg in Lith. and he derives it from PIE *-o:. Indeed, this D.
sg -uo in Lith. could be explained the same as -uo in n-stem N. sg but in
Slavic it doesn't work. Could D. sg of o-stems also somehow be included into
the superlongvowel-theory? I don't see how but...

Mate