Re: [tied] Re: Dybo's law

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 39805
Date: 2005-08-27

I suddenly remembered I hadn't replied to this...

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:16:41 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

[on Slavic thematic present 1sg. -oN:]
>The nasal accretion is somewhat
>enigmatic. The only reasonable explanation I know is Vaillant's: a
>reduced secondary *-mi from athematic verbs. The phonetic
>developmenmt is then as with the instrumental feminine in -ojoN (Sl.
>tojoN : Ved. táya:, sénaya:, Lith. baltáN-ja). In both cases an
>added analogical *-mi has been reduced to a simple nasal feature.

I don't think the added element relates to athematic *-mI:
why would it have been reduced? The thematic 1sg. ending
*-o: would regularly have produced *-a(:), and *-a + -mI is
a prefectly acceptable present ending, which in later Slavic
dialects did indeed spread from humble beginnings (damI,
imamI) to completely replace the inherited ending -ajoN.

I think it more likely that the nasalization spread from the
thematic 1sg. aorist and imperfect -uN (*moguN, *nêsuN,
*nesoxuN, *nesêaxuN), before these forms were denasalized.
Nasalization was apparently came to be seen as a feature of
the thematic 1sg. in general and was therefore added to
inherited *-a => -aN.

I also don't think that the *-m in the instrumental sg. fem.
(*-ojja: + m), the loc. sg. fem. (Skt. -a:ya:m), the
gen./loc.du. (Grk. -oiiun) or the ins./dat.du. (Skt.
-bhya:m) has anything to do with *-mi. *-mi simply isn't
reduced to *-m in either Indo-Iranian, Greek or
Balto-Slavic. It would be interesting to know where it
*does* come from...

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal