Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

>I
> have no problem with the Lith. developments -ui~ or -õ: (if
> Z^emaitian points to -ó:, I would understand that less
> well).

I've just re-checked. The ending shows no Saussure-Leskien
(ve.~lkô.u 'wolf' D.sg. vs. ve.~lkò. In.sg.) and, as it turns out,
has Auks^taitian parallels (vil~kuo), so it's *-õ:. BTW, some
Auks^taitian dialects have non-acuted -u (vil~ku) -- a real mystery
for Lithuanists, AFAIK.

> Slavic probably also had *o:, which like *e:
> subsequently developed into broken diphtongs *úo (ô) *íe
> (ê).

This is interesting. I think that Common Slavic *e^ was more or less
[eæ] (raised to [ie] dialectally). The odd thing about this *uo ~ *ie
thing is that it is *y (*u:) and not *u (your *uo) that looks like a
back correlate of *e^ in Common Slavic.

Sergei