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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?


> > 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
>
> 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?)

How? Why? I think palatalised forms just prove that we have to derive
both -y and -e from *-a:ns. Thank god for palatal stems :-)

Mate