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

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:54:06 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>> >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: ?

Why *-mnu??

My hitherto preferred explanation *-o-mW-i > *-o-mW-u >
*-owu > *-õ would I'm afraid produce a circumflex, and the
ending has an acute (triggers Saussure's law in Lithuanian).

>> 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:?

As I said: *-o-h3 (and probably *-o-eH).

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