From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 32313
Date: 2004-04-25
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:It's a weak point, but not lethal. The situation is
>
>> Would it be plausible to assume the following:
>>
>> * h-raising was late in Krivichian, and came in part _after_
>> j-Umlaut.
>>
>> * this gave a paradigm in the (j)o-stems:
>>
>> hard soft
>> nom. *-U -(j)e ~ -(j)I
>> acc. -U -(j)I
>>
>> * "soft" -(j)e, allowing a convenient distinction between
>> nom. and acc., spread to hard stems, giving:
>>
>> nom -e -(j)e ~ (j)I
>> acc. -U -(j)I
>
>Vermeer and Krys'ko tried to speculate along the same lines: they
>assume N.sg. -o (*o-masculina) and -je (*jo-masculina) for some stage
>of pre-Krivichian (or even Proto-Slavic in general), -e having spread
>to hard stems. A weak point I see here (both in your and their
>explanation) is the fact N.sg. and Acc.sg have nearly merged in the
>soft declension itself: -(j)e is very rare, the *-IcI and *-zI (a
>product of the 3rd palatalization) being a strange exception (there -
>I and -e seem to be distributed more or less equally).
>> Did Krivichian use the acc. or the gen. for animate objects?All the more reason to distinguish acc. from nom.,
>
>Acc. prevails; G. is limited to personal names and -- to a lesser
>extent -- to common names denoting persons (not animate objects in
>general), and is often ascribed to the influence of Standard Old
>Russian, Church Slavonic and other Slavic dialects.