Re: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:14:32 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<s.tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> OK. So if I understand correctly the i- and u-stem endings
>> -ìms and -ùms come from -íms and -úms?
>
>Phonologically, they *are* /-íms/)and /-úms/ (still -ìmus and -ùmus
>in Old Lithuanian). The phonological acute (whatever be its
>phonetical manifestation, which is highly dialect- or even idiolect-
>dependent) is still there and is exactly the same as in /ém/, /ám/
>etc. It's the unfortunate notational convention (trying to emphasize
>the shortness of the vowel in Standard Lithuanian (but not in the
>dialects) rather than anything having to do with pitch accent) that
>seems to mislead you. One shouldn't forget that it's a long vowel
>*or* a diphthong (vocalic or liquid) that is the domain of the
>Lithuanian pitch accent, not just a long vowel, as you seem to imply,
>so a stressed -VRC just can't but bear a pitch accent independently
>of the phonetic quantuty of the vowel.

I won't deny being confused. In this case, the confusion
also had to do with the fact that these are diphtongs only
secondarily (there were no diphthongs in OLith -ìmus, -ùmus,
right?).

Forgive my ignorance. How come the standard language
maintains -imìs, -umìs and doesn't have the -im~s, -um~s
which you cited (dialectal forms?). Is the reduction of
Dpl. -oms, -ams, -ims, -ums part of the same phenomenon that
led to the reduction of akmen~s, dukter~s?


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...