--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> Having now inspected Kortlandt's reply to Olander a little
> closer, I may accidentally have been not that stupid.
> I'm referring of course to the Lith. a.p. 2 forms Dpl.
> ran~koms, Lpl. ran~kos(u/e), Ipl. ran~komis.
What Kortlandt forgot to mention is that whether and how Saussure's
law operated word-medially is still disputed. Whatever position one
would take, numerous examples and counterexamples may be quoted. Most
likely it indeed worked, but one must take into account numerous
levellings. In a word, ran~koms can't be quoted as an evidence the *-
a:- had changed its acute to circumflex by the time of Saussure's law.
Furthermore, North Z^emaitian has broken tone there: [várnûoms]
<várnomis>, and we have dialectal and OLith. ill. rankósna next to
(more usual resp. innovative) ran~kosna, so the forms you quote are
most likely analogical after pir~s^tamus, tur~gumus, tur~gumis etc.
Sergei