On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:37:40 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer
<
mcv@...> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:24:32 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
><S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>
>>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>>
>>> 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).
>
>It's a weak point, but not lethal. The situation is
>consistent with analogical spread. In the original
>environment (the soft stems), there has been no change (both
>endings occur as they have resulted from historical
>accident). In the environment where the analogical -e has
>spread to (the hard stems), the replacement is regular and
>complete (as analogy tends to be). The only puzzling thing
>is why the -e didn't analogically spread back to the soft
>stems that didn't have it.
A slightly parallel case: the Lith. o-stem nom. pl. *-oy
(giving acute *-aí > Slavic -i, Lith. -ì), analogicaly
replaced in the hard o-stem nouns by the soft ending -ai~.
The original situation must have been (I'll use á for
stressed acute, à for unstressed acute, â for stressed
circumflex, ã for unstressed circumflex):
nouns/adjectives:
-hard -aí (-aì)
-soft A -jaí (-jaì) (light root)
-soft B -ijaì > -jaì (heavy stressed root)
-soft C -ijaí > -jaî (heavy unstressed root)
The contraction of stressed -ijaí (or is it -íjaì?) led to
circumflex -jai~ in the "soft C" stems.
This situation leads to the endings we find in the
adjectives (accents as in Lith.):
*-o- : ge~ras -> gerì
*-jo- : z^ãlias -> z^alì
*-ijo- : dìdelis -> didelì
*-íjo- : auksìnis [< *auksini:~s] -> auksìniai
In the nouns, there is no alternation, and all endings have
been analogically replaced by -(i)ai~/-(i)aî:
*-o- : výras -> výrai
*-jo- : ke~lias -> keliai~
*-ijo- : me~dis -> me~dz^iai
*-íjo- : arkly~s -> arkliai~
This is similar to the nom.sg. in Krivichian, with
historically correct [but of unclear origin] alternation in
the soft endings -(j)I or -(j)e, and complete analogical
Ausgleich in the hard stems.
The motivation for the spread of soft stem -(j)ai~ to the
hard stems in Lithuanian is another question: a nom.pl.
*vyrì didn't conflict with any other case form [unlike
Slavic nom.sg. -U]. The most likely trigger seems to me to
be the circumflexion of the monosyllabic pronouns nom.pl
*(j)eí, *toí, *k^oí to jie~, tie~, s^ie~ (as the result of
an unrelated soundlaw), and then *<tei~ viraí> / <tie~
*vyrì> -> *<tei~ výrai~> / <tie~ výrai>, with circumflex
endings in both pronoun and noun. The adjectives were
unaffected.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...