From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 32333
Date: 2004-04-27
>The more I think of your extension of Kortlands' solution to explain -ì vs.It is curious that mobile paradigms end-stress the o-stem
>-iai~ in adjectives, the less I like it. The only (but crucial) merit of
>contractional-analogical explanation of -ai~ in the *nominal* paradigm is
>that it explains why -ai~ doesn't show the effect of Saussure's law (the
>circumflex itself not being a problem, since the rule -ái# > -a~i# is
>automatic in Standard Lithuanian (the exceptions like jái, visái are rare
>and are usually of analogical origin or a result of interdialectal
>borrowings) -- we've been on that many times before). Your -ái > -ì seems to
>be ad hoc -- why do we have sakai~ (with -ai~ showing the effect of
>Saussure's law and having acute in part of the Z^emaitian dialects (and
>broken tone in the other)), not +sak-ì? Doesn't it look more natural to
>assume that adjectives took their *(i)(j)o-stems N.pl. (*-íe) from pronouns,
>-iai~ (as well as some other -- dialectally all -- cases) being obviously
>analogical after *-ijo-nouns?