Re: [tied] Re: Decircumflexion, N-raising, H-raising: Slavic soundr

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:48:12 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> By the way, I forgot to mention that for the a:-stem gen.
>> sg. and nom. pl., I could not find a way to make a
>> derivation directly from *-a::s work, not for the soft
>> stems. At some point, intrusive nasalization must have been
>> introduced, even where we find -jê, not -jeN. Plain
>> *-(j)a::s would have given -y/-ji.
>
>Because of different (-je^ ~ -jeN) reflexes this intrusion must have
>occured very late -- probably at the time after the delabialization
>and subsequent denasalization *-u:N > *-y: and the merger *ei > *e.:
>to *i:, so Slavic would had:
>
>G.sg. *z^eny: ~ *zemji:
>N.pl. *z^eny: ~ *zemji:
>Acc.pl *z^eny: ~ *zemjiN.

OK. In my rules, I've put the nasalization at the very
beginning, for convenience's sake (and because similar
things happen in Vedic, so it's within the spirit of late
PIE ~ early Slavic). Your proposal would work too, and
looks better motivated.

>Then the soft declension could have been levelled on the model of the
>hard one, namely "G.sg.=N.pl.=Acc.pl". *iN was preferred to *i:
>simply because introducing *i: would have created an over-homophony
>in the soft declension, since there already were two more cases in *-
>i: (D.sg and L.sg.).

Remind me: was Krivichian masc. (o-stem) nom. sg. -e the
ending of both hard and soft stems, or only of hard stems?
And what are the corresponding accusatives? At some point,
when I was reshuffling rules (in this case J-umlaut _before_
H-raising), I got Krivichian-looking nominative *-jos > -je
as the result.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...