Re: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts



>So we all agree that these forms were originally
>end-stressed. The question I was trying to answer was why
>the stress got retracted, something which doesn't happen
>with other disyllabic endings like -imì, -umì, -yjè, and,
>even defying Hirt's law, -omìs, -osù (> -osè). [Except the
>dat. pl. forms (-áms, -óms, etc.), which I don't fully
>understand].

Actually, in a recent festschrift for Jens, Thomas Olander (which has taken
part in some of the discussions here) explains -áms and -óms as archaisms
and -omi`s, -osu` etc. as innovations. He thinks that the stress was
originally on the thematic vowel and that desinential stress can be
explained via de Saussure in Lith. and via Dybo in Slavic with further
analogical developments. I personally agree with his analysis.

Mate