[tied] Re: Mi- and hi-conjugation in Germanic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:23:34 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >On 05-03-16 23:17, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> >
> >> We can agree that media + /n/ had a strong blocking effect.
> >
> >What about *agneN, one of the showcase examples of WL?
>
> Right. I vaguely remembered there was at least one
> counterexample, but I didn't remember what it was.
>
> The examples of non-lengthening that Jens gives in his 1992
> article are: ognI, ugnìs; (v)oNglI, anglìs; lùgnas;
> sla~bnas.

One may perhaps mention Lith. gie~dras, Latv. idrs, Lith. vìglas and
OCS dUbrI (thus corrected) which I also gave. Along with ognI I also
gave Lith. agnà 'energy', agnùs, Latv. agns 'fiery'.

I now find the Slavic l-participles embarrassing: *padlU, *e^dlU,
*se^dlU, etc. Did Cn block the lengthening generally, and did Cr and
Cl block it on high vowels only? That would demand another
explanation for vydra and *agneN (vowels long already?), while vêdro
would be okay. There certainly is not just a general and unaffected
lengthening before stop + sonant. But a rule that really covers the
material seems harder and harder to find.

Jens