From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 32816
Date: 2004-05-20
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:I believe it is, in the 2/3sg.
>
>> The problem is that it may not
>> be possible to compare the acc.pl. with anything else: it's
>> the only desinence of the shape *-Ns that we have. [...]
>
>> The nom.sg. *-s (< *-z) always lengthens (nom.sg. hasti: <
>> *hastins),
>
>The suffix of n-stems is not justv /n/ in IE, so this is analogical:
>n-stems formed to a- stems have nom. -a:, so n-stems formed to i-
>stems get -i: by simple analogy. No necessary phonetic rule in this.
>
>> and so does the *-s- of the s-aorist
>
>That is not a case of final nasal + sibilant.
>> the *-s (< *-&s) of the gen.sg. doesn't lengthen (pátir dánOf course it's open. That's the problem.
>> < *potis dems), and neither does the the 2sg. ending.
>
>Right, that is the phonetic part: *-N-s does not cause lengthening
>per se. The nominative marker does, but that is not restricted to
>nasals.
>
>> The same applies to Balto-Slavic. *-ims and *-ums are
>> lengthened, giving Slavic -i and -y (Lith. with secondary
>> shortening -ìs and -ùs), so we cannot tell if the long vowel
>> in the o-stem ending -y comes from *-oms or *-o:ms.
>
>I suppose the length in inherited in o-stems and analogical in other
>stems.
>
>> Same thing in Celtic and Italic. OIr. o-stem acc.pl. -u can
>> go back to *-o:ns, but u-stems and i-stems also have a long
>> vowel (-u, -i). Latin ditto: -o:s, -u:s, -i:s (Classical
>> -e:s is the nominative form < *-ei-es).
>
>The interpretation that -VNs just gives -V:s, which is general
>opinion, still seems open to me.