On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:08:07 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<
s.tarasovas@...> wrote:
>--- 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.
But obviously Kortlandt doesn't think it didn't work,
otherwise he'd just stated that, and nothing more needs to
be said about Olander's theory.
>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 the broken tone points to acuteness? But does it point
to acuteness of *-a:- or to acuteness of *-mi:s?
>, 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.
I would only believe that as a last resort. Too ugly, there
must be a better solution.
We can compare Slavic -akU < *-ah2kós. Like the plural
a:-stem forms in Lithuanian (and unlike the Slavic ones,
which are regular), this suffix for some reason escaped
Hirt's law, and it emerges with circumflex intonation on the
/a/ in Slavic. Can't the same rule have worked in
Lithuanian?
As to my explanation of the accentuation on the Lith. Dpl.
by Nieminen's law, which nobody comented on, I forgot that
Kortlandt in the same article mentions the (Old) Latvian
forms of the dem. pronoun Dpl. tie~m(s), tãm(s) vs. Ipl.
tiêm(s), tâm(s), Lpl. tôs, tâs. The masculine forms are
probably secondary anyway (I see no reason why there should
ever have been an acute on *toimós, *tõis, *toisú), but fem.
tãm(s) suggests that root stress on the Dpl. vs. end-stress
on the I. and Lpl. was already East Baltic, so I guess that
excludes Nieminen's law. Also interesting are the Ddu. and
Idu., where we have e.g. Lith. Ddu. -ám (< *-á:mo:) vs. Idu.
-am~ (< *-a:mó:). This distinction is based on absolutely
nothing in PIE (DLdu. *-ah2móh3, cf. Slav. -a"ma), and must
be analogical after the accentual distinction in the D. vs.
I. in the plural. Or the way around, of course: a
distinction was created in the dual, which was then
transferred to the plural.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...