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

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:46:16 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> The difference is, as I already admitted: -a:- + -eí for the
>> 2sg. and -a:- + -ei~ for the a:-stem dat.sg.
>
>I have noted that.
>
>> I was too optimistic. Let me rephrase: "The verbal form
>> comes from *-a:- + *-eí, which I'd expect to give either
>> *-a:i~ or *-á:i, Die~vas knows which."
>
>What would be the reflexes of your *-a:i~ and *-á:i in historical
>Lithuanian?

-a:i~ is the dat.sg. ending (-ai). I'm not sure -á:i
existed (and I'm unsure of the relative dates of Saussure's
law vs. the contraction/creation of the 1/2sg. a:-stem
verbal endings).

>*-a:i~ and *-á:i vs. *-ai~ and *-ái (are those Balto-
>Slavic, Baltic, East Baltic, specifically pre-Lithuanian, BTW?) is
>something a bit excentic to me.

If we take out doubtful *-á:i, the other three are
definitely Balto-Slavic. Slavic *-a:i~ gives -ê (dat/loc.
a:-stems), *-ai~ gives -ê (loc. o-stems), and *-aí gives -i
(nom.pl. o-stems).

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