On Tue, 18 May 2004 20:27:37 +0000, elmeras2000
<
jer@...> wrote:
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
><richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
>
>> The problem here is that Jens does not accept *-om as the genitive
>> plural - the evidence for -o:m looks much better.
>
>Sure it does. Am I the only one here feeling I could compromise
>gen.pl. *-om with a short vowel better if I accepted it?
Is there a way to determine whether the o-stem acc.pl. was
-o:ms or -oms?
Gothic -ans and Greek -ons (> -ous, etc.) seem to reflect
*-oms, but can also reflect *-o:ms with Osthoff shortening
(V:CC > VCC).
Lithuanian -ùs seems to reflect *-o:ms, but that may also
reflect lengthening before *-Ns (cf. i-stem acc.pl. -ìs).
the same goes for Slavic (o-stem -y < -u:Nh, but i-stem -i <
-i:Nh) and Vedic (o-stem -a:n(s), i-stem -i:n(s)).
Is there a language that doesn't automatically shorten
vowels before -Ns, and also doesn't automatically lengthen
them?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...