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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...> wrote:

> > 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 :-)
>

Well, *a:-stems G. sg. is most likely analogical anyway, so my
analogy is as weak as others, but not weaker, I suppose. And -- as
I've written -- we have that <maneN~s> thing in Lithuanian (how?
why?), and the nasality (first and foremost associated with
accusative) is observed in South Slavic only (not in West, East or
Krivichian) -- doesn't that look suspicious?

Sergei