Re: Slavic endings

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mcvwxsnl" <mcv@...> wrote:

>
> Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
>
> > mcvwxsnl <mcv@...> wrote:
> > The facts about the stress are the following:
> >
> > masc. nom. *-os could be stressed (mobile paradigm) or
> > unstressed (barytone paradigm). In both cases the result
> > is (pre-Dybo's law) Slavic unstressed -U.
> > masc. acc. *-om was always unstressed in Proto-Balto-Slavic.
> > It gives Slavic unstressed -U.
> > neuter NA. *-os (s-stems) was always unstressed. It gives
> > Slavic unstressed -o.
> >
> > Why did unstressed *-os become -U in masculines, but
> > become -o in neuters?
>
> Either, as Piotr suggested, the presence of oblique forms
> in -es- triggered a special development of the NAsg. in -os,
> or the -o of the s-stems does not continue PIE *-os, but
> pronominal *-od.
>

Is it possible that PIE had a non-sigmatic nominative
which survived only in Slavic? After all, the nom. -s
in athematic inflections in many cases looks like it's
been slapped on later. CF. also the Novgorod nominatives
in -e. It would match the Fennic languages which became
substrates to the early slavic ones, they have unmarked
nominatives.

> > This suggests that perhaps unstressed *o before *s
> > remained /o/ rather than being raised
>
> Unstressed -os becomes -U in the o-stem nom. sg.,
> in the dat.pl. *-mos > -mU, in the verbal 1pl.
> *-mos > -mU. We only have -o in the neuter s-stems,
> where the obvious explanation for the -o, in my
> opinion, is analogy after all the other neuter forms.
>

Here's another try:
õ > U, o stays
Thematic nom. is actually *-oNs > *-õs, dat.pl. is
*-moNs > *-mõs, and verbal 1pl. is *-moNs > *-mõ.

> > , and that -U in the masculines is
> > from the accusative.
>
> That, of course, cannot be excluded. Accent-wise,
> the nom.sg. form of mobile o-stems continues the
> accusative. The question is whether the
> accusative took the place of the nominative, or
> whether the nominative shifted its stress back after
> it had become the only singular form with end-stress
> in mobile words (after the loss of the instrumental
> in *-óh1 > -á).

Drastic accent shifts don't seem to bother the Russians.

> > It can be added that in the verbal system, stressed
> > *-ós (e.g. 1pl. mobile -mós) and *-óm (e.g. 1sg.
> > thematic aorist *-(s)óm) both give -U (which was
> > stressed before Ivs^ic''s law).
> > ________
> > Robert Beekes suggests that the 1 pl. ending might
> > have been -mom in some languages, rather than *-mos
> > (alongside *-mem (Greek -men) and *-mes).
>

*-moNs > *-mõs

> Like Piotr, I don't think there was any such thing
> as *-mom. The Greek ending reflects PIE *-m(W)en,
> where *-en- is a verbal plural marker, also found
> in 2pl. *-ten- (Hitt. -ten, -teni; Toch. -cer) and
> 3pl. -en-t/-er(s).

closed syllable PPIE *-m(W)an > *-m(W)oN
open syllable PPIE *-m(W)a-ni > *-m(W)e-ni
etc

> The Slavic 1pl. ending hesitates between *-mos >
> -mU and *-mes > -me. Perhaps something similar is
> seen in Baltic, where we have -me: in Lithuanian,
> and maybe *-mo: > -ma(i) in Prussian. I would
> attribute the Umlaut e>o here to the labialized
> nasal, which also explains Hittite 1pl. -wen(i),
> -wan(i).
>

Old open/closed syllable.


Torsten