On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:51:48 +0100, Mate Kapovic
<
mkapovic@...> wrote:
>Well, *-mas > -mus in Lithuanian is more "regular" than the supposed *-mas >
>*-mo:ns in pre-Lith.
I disagree. For instance, I find Slav. a:-stem G.sg.
-y/-jêN (< *-(j)a:ns) more "regular" than Krivichian o-stem
N.sg. -e (assuming it's not simply the vocative). That is
to say, I don't lose any sleep over the nasalized G.sg.,
unlike over that damned N.sg.
I can imagine one case (A.pl.) influencing another (the
G.sg. or the D.pl.). I find that much easier to accept than
"impossible" developments such as *-as > Lith. -us / Sl. -e.
>I see no compelling evidence to push the OP innovation
>such as -mans in D. pl. so far back into time.
Well, the evidence is Lith. -mus.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...