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

> From: Mate Kapovic [mailto:mkapovic@...]

> 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.
>

Looks attractive, but how would you explain the "double raising" *-a:s >
*-o:s > *-u:s > *-y in phonetic terms? *s# raises, but is that enough for
*a: to turn *u:? Or you prefer to be neo-gramatically agnostic as to the
intermediate stages?

Sergei