[tied] Re: Balto-Slavic C-stems / long vowel endings

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapoviæ <mkapovic@...> wrote:

>
> On Pon, sijeèanj 22, 2007 12:15 am, mcarrasquer reèe:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mandicdavid" <davidmandic@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The 1sg. pres. ending -oH2 yielded acute -o: in Lithuanian (later
> >> short -u). In Slavic, it turned into -a: and was later expanded
> > with
> >> the secondary ending -m (cf. 1sg. aorist pekU < *pekwom, and also
> >> skr. bhára:mi < *bhero:+mi). The addition of -m probably followed
> > the
> >> change o: > a: in Slavic, because the o: yielded u: > y before
> > nasal
> >> stops in word-final position: kamy < *ka:mu: < *ak'mo:n. Also, -

a:N

> > #
> >> wasn't affected by umlaut (A.sg. zemljoN; thus also 1.sg. pres.
> > bijoN
> >> etc.).
> >
> > Actually, the addition of -m must have followed the raising of

back

> > vowels before final nasals (or we would have gotten *-o:m > *-u:N
> *-
> > uN > -U),
>
> Only if one derives G. pl. -U from *-o:m...

I derive it from *-õm, which is required by Lithuanian -uN~. The
Lithuanian form cannot be from *-om (> -aN), or from *-o:m (> -ù ?).

> > and preceeded the shortening of long diphtongs (or we would
> > have gotten -o:m > -a(m)).
> >
> > <Kamy> "stone" cannot come from *h2ák^mo:n, because that would

have

> > yielded <kamU>.
> > In fact, it _does_ yield <kam> in I forget which
> > Slavic dialect (Kashubian?).
>
> ... which is not necessarily archaic. Dropping of the obsolete -y

to make

> a new o-stem is hardly surprising. In Croatian, one also finds

dialectally

> kamen/kami/kam/kamik, plamen/plami/plam etc. But not everything

needs to

> be derived directly from PIE.

True.

> > The Slavic form, like Lith. <akmuõ>,
> > comes from PIE *h2ák^mõ, a variant with the final resonant dropped
> > (only its falling tone remains).
>
> Or, simpler, from PIE *h2ek'mo:ns with a final *-s.

There is no PIE *h2ek'mo:ns. Even if there was, it wouldn't explain
Lith. akmuõ.