Re: [tied] Re: Dybo's law

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:22:41 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> In OCS and what underlies modern Russian pronunciation. Old
>> Russian and e.g. modern Ukrainian have expected -(e)tI.
>>
>> In general, we find forms with -0, with -tU and with -tI in
>> Slavic (also in the 3pl.). -tI is the expected reflex of
>> PIE *-ti. Zero is the expected reflex of PIE *-t, the
>> secondary (past/injunctive or subjunctive) ending, and I
>> believe that -tU is also a regular outcome of PIE *-t.
>> Compare similar alternations in the personal pronoun (j)a ~
>> (j)azU, and in prepositions such as o ~ ob ~ obU. In Old
>> Novgorodian, the forms with -0 are generally used in a modal
>> sense, while the forms with -tI are used in
>> declarative/indicative context (Zaliznjak, p. 119-120), so
>> that fits in nicely.
>
>I haven't got access to the raw facts where I am, and I would really
>like to see some examples of clear sentences that invite this
>differentiated analysis.

I believe I quoted the passage in full (no examples though)
in message:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/33808

>If it is correct it may lend credence to
>Forssman's identification of -tU with Sanskrit -tu, the ending of
>the 3rd person imperatives. Could that be substantiated?

Old Novgorodian doesn't have -tU, just -tI and -0. The
Novgorodian facts would support Forssman if one could find a
way to go from -tU to zero, which I don't think is possible.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...