On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:44:33 +0200, Mate Kapovic
<
mkapovic@...> wrote:
>Oh, we do. We have -oN in 1. sg present from PIE *-oh2-m > *-o:m.
It depends on when the -m was added. Now that we have all
the Slavic Auslaut rules worked out, that's easy to check.
I'm unsure about the PIE pre-form, with or without
laryngeal, with or without contraction, so for safety I'll
check both PBS possibilities (*-õ(+m) and *-ó:(+m)).
*-m added before all the raising/shortening rules:
-o::m [C]> -u:m [N/LDE]> -um > -U Not correct.
-o:m [N/LDE]> -um > -U Not correct.
*-m added after Slavic decircumflexion:
-o:: [C]> -u:+m [N/LDE]> -um > -U Not correct.
-o:+m [N/LDE]> -um > -U Not correct.
*-m added after all the raising/shortening rules:
-o:: [C]> -u:+m > -y Not correct.
-o:+m [= -a:m] > -oN Correct.
So only one possibility works: the PBS form was *-o: (not
*-o::, as indeed Lithuanian -ù confirms), and -m was added
after all the Auslaut stuff had worked.
As a purely theoretical possibility, *-a:m (a:-subjunctive?)
[no matter if or when the -m was added] could also work (cf.
f.acc.sg. -oN, f.ins.sg. -ojoN).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...