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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:17 PM
Subject: [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?

It does. Could it be solved this way maybe? *e (3) is attested instead of *e
in G. sg and n/a pl. of a-stems and a. pl. of o-stems in NorthSlavic.
In pre-ProtoSlavic we had G. sg. *-a:s, n. pl. *-a:s and a. pl. *-a:s in
a-stems and a. pl. *-a:ns in o-stems. Both *-a:s and *-a:ns would yield -y
in later Slavic. But in later-to-be South Slavic, a. pl. of a-stems becomes
analogically *-a:ns instead of *-a:s and soon after that G. sg. and n. pl.
take the new ending being the same before that as well. From this *-a:ns we
have -y and -e in South Slavic. But in later-to-be North Slavic we have
a-stem a. pl. analogically affecting o-stem a. pl. and it changes from
*-a:ns to *-a:s. So all four endings are now *-a:s there which develops
as -y (the same as *-a:ns) after nonpalatal consonants but as -e (*-a:s >
*-e:s > -e) after palatals. The -y looks now the same because both *-a:ns
and *-a:s > -y but the original difference is seen in soft stems.

Mate