Re: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:24:32 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<s.tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>>(there were no diphthongs in OLith -ìmus, -ùmus,
>> right?).
>
>Of course.
>
>> How come the standard language
>> maintains -imìs, -umìs and doesn't have the -im~s, -um~s
>> which you cited (dialectal forms?).
>
>The short answer is "by chance". The Lithuanian dialects demonstrate
>nearly all the possible combinations of contracted and non-contracted
>disyllabic desinences, and the process is still active, so the
>standard language probably just has photographed (in the end of the
>19th c.) and canonized the wave of this (morpho)phonological change
>as it went through some of the South-West Auks^taitian dialects.
>
>> Is the reduction of
>> Dpl. -oms, -ams, -ims, -ums part of the same phenomenon that
>> led to the reduction of akmen~s, dukter~s?
>
>Yes.

Allright.

Now can we conclude then that the Dpl. ending was -mó:ns in
Proto-Baltic (> Lith. -mus and OP -mans)?

And would the OLith. forms be:

D -àmus -ómus -ìmus -ùmus
L -iesù (or -íesu?) -osù -isù -usù
I -omìs -imìs -umìs

I'm not sure about the o-stem Lpl.

According to my reconstruction, I would expect OLith.:

D *-amùs -ómus *-imùs *-umùs
L -iesù *-ósu -isù -usù
I *-ómis -imìs -umìs,

and Kortlandt's Polish analogy seems apt.


If I understand Olander's proposal, the expected forms would
be:

D *-amùs -ómus *-imùs *-umùs
(Saussure's law, except in the a:-stems)
L *-ie~su(?) *-ósu *-ìsu *-ùsu
(no Saussure's law)
I *-ómis -imìs -umìs
(Saussure's law as above).

Is that correct?

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