--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
> >I think the comparison
> >between Slav. (pre-Dybo) *-íko- : Lith. -ìka-, Slav.
*-ímo-
> >: Lith. -ìma- can hardly be ignored.
>
> Neither can the comparison between Slav. *-ikó- : PIE
> *-ikó-, Slav. *-imó- : PIE *-imó-.
Just bear in mind that we anyway have to explain why Baltic decided
to put the stress on the -i- in *-íko- and *-ímo- and on the
thematic vowel in *-inó- and *-iskó-. There is no sound law for
that
either (as far as I know). Once we've explained that, there is a
good chance we can use the same explanation for Slavic.
What is PIE -imó-?
By the way, in Copenhagen we are taught that Lith. -ìmas is from *-
m.no- > *-imno- > -ima-, a thematization of action nouns in *-men-,
(cf. Rasmussen, Selected Papers, p. 201-2) This admittedly doesn't
explain the accent, but otherwise seems reasonable (could the suffix
have been mixed up with the participle *-m.h1nó-, where Hirt's Law
worked? > *-í´mno- > *-ímo-?)