[tied] Slavic G. pl. (was: Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
wrote:

> > Well, this is supposed to be an empirical science. If there are

no

> > other cases of *-oom or *-o:m in Slavic, we really cannot know

for

> > sure what becomes of such a protoform if there was one.
>
> Oh, we do. We have -oN in 1. sg present from PIE *-oh2-m > *-o:m.

I do not accept that. I might as well accept Sanskrit bhara:mi as
evidence of PIE *-o:mi or *-omi. The Slavic form may well have a
similar history: IE *-o: > PBSl. *-o: -> pre-PSl. *-o:-mi > *-o:m
(i). The reduction of *-i is no worse here than in the 3rd persons.
Vaillant has added the fine point that Lith. instr.sg.fem. gerà,
geráN-ja would represent a fully parallel reduction of *-a:-mi, i.e.
an analogical form parallel with -i-mì, -u-mì. Here too Slavic has -
ojoN with a final part developed the same way.

> >The fact is
> > that there is no other evidence for a short vowel in the genitive
> > plural in Indo-European.
>
> Slavic (-7 is *very* short, it points to *short* origin, not

long), Latin,

> Old Irish, Hittite (-an in both A. sg and g. pl. in Old Hittite).

Is that

> enough? The reasonable thing to assume is that *-o-om > *-o:m

originated in

> o-stems and that other stems had *-om. Later, some languages

generalized the

> long variant, others the short one.

Perhaps, but then fully, so that nothing remains of the old *system*
which to nyou is so important to show which belonged where to begin
with. I do not know of any IE language that distinguishes the
gen.pl. form of thematic stems from that of the other stem classes
(except by analogy as Lat. -o:rum, -a:rum).

None of the languages quoted is fit to show what you make it. Latin
has no long vowel at all before final -m (sim, amem, insulam,
gen.pl. deum all have short vowel + -m). The same goes for Old
Irish, cf. acc.sg. toil from *toleN < *tolam < *tola:m (nom.
tol 'will'), and Hitt. -an is short also in te-e-kán from *d(h)ég^h-
o:m 'earth'.

> >Many languages have a shortening before
> > final /-m/, so what is so terrible with a reflex of *-oom looking
> > like that of *-om?
>
> Because in Slavic *-om surely yields -7 and /7/ is a *reduced*

vowel, it is

> not very likely it stems from a long vowel. And in similar cases

we have

> nasal vowels from V: + -m# like -oN in 1sg present and -oN in Asg

eh2-stems

> < *-a:m.

These are not valid arguments, you are just repeating a mantra.
There could be more then two things to distinguish in this.

> >And is there absolutely no indication of a larger
> > amount of compensatory lengthening in Slavic before the reduced
> > gen.pl. ending than before that of the acc.sg.?
>
> Yes, but it is because the situation Nsg *bra´´t7 - Asg *bra´´t7 -

Gpl

> *bra´´t7 was dealt differently. Asg had a tendency to take -a from

Gsg and

> gpl to change the intonation by imitating a. p. c Nsg vo^rt7, Gpl

vo~rt7 <

> *vort'7.

Meaning 'neck'?

> As for compensatory lengthening, it is not so compelling evidence.

Firstly,

> in Slovene and Kajkavian neocircumflex doesn't always become from

comp.

> lenthening.

And what then is its origin here?

> Secondly, Czech and Shtokavian don't have comp. lengthening
> anywhere else so there is no need to claim that neocircumflex

there must be

> because of the old length in the next syllable.

Then what is it because? If this is the only ending of its sort it
would be no small wonder that its special effect is not seen
elsewhere.

> Thirdly, the idea of the
> long jer is absurd. Jers are reduced vowels, they cannot be long.

And if

> they could be long, how come they were dropped anyway in the end?

And no,

> they were not reflected as -a: in Shtokavian. Written attestations

clearly

> show this -a: is an innovation.

Sure, but if the ending is lost there is all the more reason to
expect a compensation. And loss of a longer ending could be expected
to produce more compensation than loss of a shorten ending. Why can
there not have been degrees of reduced vowels that were both lost? I
think you are leaving the ground of empiry here.

Jens