--- 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-.
> >
> From where I stand, I don't need it for Slavic. Neuter
> oxytone o-stems such as *pter-óm, *krid-lóm, *wedr-óm,
> *o(:)ntróm, and words in *-inóm, *-ikóm, *-ijóm etc.
> remained oxytone, which gives us exactly the accentual
> pattern as attested in Slavic.
>
> >What is PIE -imó-?
>
> A mistake. Read *-ijó-.
Lithuanian shows evidence for stressed adjectival *-íjo- as well.
The adj. suffix -ìnis, -ìne: (when derived from mobile words)
reflects an earlier *-in-íja-, with regular retraction of the stress
from -íja-.
It might be relevant that the nominal suffix -ija- in Baltic either
gives root-stress (denominal concrete nouns) or underlying suffix
stress -ìja- (denominal abstract nouns, deverbal action nous), with
later retraction. The denominal abstract nouns may in the end
reflect substantivized neuter adjectives.
This may be added to the correspondences of suffixal stress patterns
between Slavic and Baltic: Slav. (pre-Dybo) *-íjo-, *-ímo-, *-íko- =
Balt. *-íja-, *-íma-, *-íka- on the one hand and Slav. *-iskó-, *-
inó- (mob.) = Balt. *-is^ká-, *-iná- (mob.) on the other. Is this
just a coincidence?
Anders