Re: [tied] i-verbs in Baltic and Slavic

On Sri, svibanj 24, 2006 12:07 am, Miguel Carrasquer reče:

> On Tue, 23 May 2006 11:21:37 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapović
> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
>>I would also like an acute explanation, but maybe an analogy is also
>>possible? Almost all the verb suffixes in Slavic and Lithuanian are
>> acute,
>>cf. Slavic *-E´´ti (E =jat), *-a´´ti, Lith. -é.ti, -óti.
>>However, *-eyH- and *-iH- would do nicely also
>
> I don't think *-eyH- can explain Lithuanian ý (*eyH would
> have given íe), which leaves only *iH.

I meant, *-eyH- in Slavic and *-iH- in Lithuanian.

> Analogy makes sense for Slavic, but not for Baltic. In
> Slavic we may think that a hypothetical *-i~ti (< *-ey-tei)
> became *-i"ti after the model of -ę"ti and -a"ti, but in
> Lithuanian, *-ey-tei > *-ie~ti, and even if the same kind of
> analogy as in Slavic had worked, the result should have been
> *-íeti. I can't think of a way that -ýti may have come
> about by analogy.

You're right. Analogy is off then.

Mate