Re: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts


>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <s.tarasovas@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 12:53 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts
>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>>Cf., however, Kortlandt's reaction in _Baltu filolog'ija_, XIII (1),
>>2004 (http://www.lu.lv/filol/Baltu_nodala/2004Balti_XIII_1.pdf).
>
> Thanks. I haven't seen that yet.

I have just read Kortlandt's article. I still believe that Olander's
solution is much better. Kortlandt assumes the desinence stress in mobile
paradigms goes back to BSl. time but he does not really explain it. Also, I
think that the argument that the accent must have been for instance
*suHnumi` and not *suHnu`mi because there's no Hirt's Law is just false. The
word *suHnus is problematic by itself, having no Hirt's Law as it is usually
adduced - I think that Dauksa's súnus, a. p. 1 must be original and that
Standard Lith. su:nu`s is just secondarily mobile. Slavic *sy^n7 should be
either also secondarily mobile (and thus influenced by Meillet's Law) as
Lithuanian or it just became mobile later because there seems to be no a. p.
a u-stems in Slavic (similar as the lack of a. p. b o-stems etc.) as Miguel
suggested a while back. *-u`mi can be valid for any u-stem without an acute
on the root.

Mate