[tied] 1sg. -o: [was Re: IE Thematic Vowel Rule]

>
> >The difference between the two merely lies in
> >accent placement. In both, however, *m disappears
> >between *o and *i, as if first becoming *w. So
> >we can formulate a thorough post-Vowel-Shift rule:
> >
> > *-ómi > *-ówi > *-ói
> > *-omi > *-owi > *-o:
>
> Thre isn't a single shred of evidence to support such an
> accent-conditioned split.
>
> >It's reminiscent of the Hittite /m/~/w/ alternation.
>
> Which also has nothing to do with accent.
>
> I said:
>
> "We only have */o:/ out of oH or -oCs/-oCh2".
>
> But there are some other cases of lengthening, namely:
>
> - before word-final -ww (-wu), -yy (-yi), -wm, -mm. Examples
> are the loc.sg. of u-stems *-e:u < *-ewu, loc. sg. of
> i-stems: *-e:i < *-eyi, acc.sg. of diphtong-stems *gWo:m <
> *gWowm, *dye:m < *dyewm; acc.sg. of m-stems *se:m < *sem-m.
> - *-oj-m(s) > *-o:m(s) in the gen. and acc.pl. thematic.
>

How about *-o-mnu > *-o-mw > *-o: ?

> However, these all give circumflex length in Balto-Slavic
> (and Greek), except the acc.pl. where we have an acute due
> to final -s. None of them can produce final acute -o:.

What would produce produce final acute -o:?


Torsten