From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 35428
Date: 2004-12-10
>> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:54:18 +0100 (CET), mkapovic@...Could you give some of the details?
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The mobility of i-stems is not relevant, as I have already once mentioned
>>>since there is an overall tendency for i-stems to become mobile.
>>
>> What it looks like is that i-stems behave as masc. o-stems,
>> i.e. what should have become AP(b) i-stems after Dybo's law,
>> appear as AP(c) mobile i-stems. There are plenty of AP(a)
>> i-stems.
>
>Not really the same I think. I written something about it and it seems
>that a. p. a i-stems also show a tendency of becoming a. p. c i-stems.
>> In the u-stems, something like the opposite has happened.=======================
>> AP(b) u-stems are not uncommon (they have a tendency to
>> become o-stems, however, filling part of the void left by
>> AP(b) o-stems becoming mobile), and there are practically no
>> AP(a) u-stems. If the AP(a) u-stems became AP(c), that
>> would explain why Hirt's law apparently does not apply to
>> synU.
>
>Yes, like *vol7, *volu (b) which later becomes o-stem (b).
>I think you may be on the right track with *syn7. Everybody seems to
>forget (including me) that su:nus was originally a. p. 1 in Lith. and that
>mobility is secondary. So Slavic *syn7 may not be a case of Meillet's Law
>- it may have just changed the paradigm because it was an u-stem. That
>seems to be common in Slavic.