From: Mate Kapović
Message: 32190
Date: 2004-04-22
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 5:29 PM
Subject: RE: [tied] Quirky Slavic endings (was: 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.
>
> I've just looked up in Kortlandt's "From Proto-Indo-Europen to Slavic" how
> he solves the *-y -- *-je^ ~ *-jeN controversy.
>
> First, he merges *a:-stems *-a(:)ns and *o-stems *-ons by raising *a, *a:
to
> *o, *o: (*o(:) will be lowered to *a(:) later, but not before nasals, and
> this susequent lowering is in any case unrelevant). Then he postulates
(<N>
> -- nasality):
>
> (hard declension) *-oNh > (raising before *[#h]) *-uNh > *-uN >
> (delabialization) *yN; now he states, that while both acuted *y and
> ("phonetically complex", thus denasalized) *yN yield *y, "plain" *y yields
> *U (jer). Thus >*y.
>
> (soft declension) *-joNh > (raising before *[#h]) *-juNh > *-jiN; now he
> states that *iN and *eN were lowered to *e.N and *äN, thus >*(j)e.N; then
> (attention!) *äN was raised back to *eN in South Slavic, and, while he
> doesn't state that explicitly, it seems that *e.N was merged to this *eN
in
> South Slavic. This is OCS <(j)eN>. In North Slavic, *e.N and *äN were kept
> distinct up to the denasalization, hence *e. -- i. e., Old Russian <e^>
(vs.
> <'a> from denasalized *äN).
>
> I wonder, who believes that except Kortlandt himself?
Beekes, Vermeer, Lubotsky, Derksen etc. :-)
Kortlandt's theories are so complicated that I don't even have the strength
to read this one.... I mean, I read his entire Slavic Accentuation, I think
that's more than enough.... :-)
Mate