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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> > > Could D. sg of o-stems also somehow be included into
> > > the superlongvowel-theory? I don't see how but...
> >
> > It should if it is from *-o: and has not been shortened by
> > Leskien's law. It could be the truth, but I would like to see
> > some compelling evidence.
>
> Like Lith. Z^em. ve.~lkô.u 'wolf' D.sg. vs. ve.~lkò. In.sg or East
> Auks^t. (Gervé:c^iai) dzie~duo 'oldman' D.sg. vs. dziedù In.sg.?

Well, not quite. Decisive evidence would show that *-o:y yielded
something else in some dialect that has -uo~ in the o-stem dat.sg.

Jens