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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?


> > From: Piotr Gasiorowski [mailto:piotr.gasiorowski@...]
> > 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).
> >
>
> Then there's no need to postulate different proto-forms for Sl. *kamy
> (*h2akmo:n) and Lith. <akmuõ> (h2akmo::). Indeed, 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), thus
>
> (Sl.) *h2ak(^)mó:: > *káh2mo:: > *ká:mu: > *ka''my (a.p. a)
> (Lith.) *h2ak(^)mó:: > > *akmõ: > <akmuõ> (a.p. 4)
>
> (one must note, though, that due to the Sl. metathesis the Sl. and Lith.
> forms differ accentologically, but I've got no idea as to the implications
> of that difference on the development of the auslaut vowel).
>
> 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 don't see how you explain Slavic g. pl. from *-oom > *-o::m. Slavic -7
looks like plain PIE *-om to me.

Mate