From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 32368
Date: 2004-04-28
>> From: Miguel Carrasquer [mailto:mcv@...]I forgot to address that. Sorry.
>
>> The rule as I gave it was:
>>...
>
>
>We seem to be starting a second round. During the first round, you
>formulated the rule, part of it being *-(i)ái > -ì (in nouns and adjectives
>except -ijo-contraction under stress and later analogy in nouns). I asked
>why we find *-ái > -ai~ (not -ì) in verbs then (sakai~, not +sakì); and why
>would unstressed contraction -- while yielding a *long* vowel (unstressed
>-ys still exists in dialects and is attested in Old Lithuanian) -- have
>yielded not circuflex, but acute (unlike *-ja:-stems). You ignored the first
>rebuttal
>and reported the same rule one more time with one minor correctionNo, that was simply a mistake. Read: z^ãlias, z^alì. It's
>(probably to account for the second rebuttal): now didelì is accounted for
>not as "-soft B -ijaì > -jaì (heavy stressed root) *-ijo- : dìdelis ->
>didelì" , but as "-yoy > -iaí > -íe" (so it seems stress doesn't play the
>role and dìdelis is classified as an *-jo- -- rather than *-ijo-stem now).
>If your answer to the first rebuttal is "ái *can* yield íe", that doesn'tOnly short vowel -aí (not -á:i) was liable to yield -íe >
>solve the problem since one feels the need of an exact rule: under what
>conditions "uncontracted" -ái yields -íe (pronouns, adjectives, nouns (as
>per your theory-- later analogically replaced)), and under what conditions
>-- -ai~ (eg., verbs).