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

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:25:41 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- 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.

I was referring to the examples of muta + n.

>Along with ognI I also
>gave Lith. agnà 'energy', agnùs, Latv. agns 'fiery'.

Yes. I didn't quote that, because I was a bit confused by
the fact that the initial 'Lith.' is missing from the text.

>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.

Yes.

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