From: tgpedersen
Message: 47171
Date: 2007-01-29
>You're right,I'm wrong. Leskien doesn't mark the cases in tsbles, and
> On 2007-01-29 16:43, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > They are from Leskien: Handbuch der altbulgarischen Sprach, neunte
> > Auflage, 1969, p. 109. In your notation they are
> > A mIneN, tebeN
> > I mUnojoN, tobojoN
> > L mIneN, tebeN
> > (but
> > D mene tebe)
> > (past knowlegde suddenly dawns on me that Old Bulgarian isn't CSl)
>
> It is, basically, and alas the forms are still wrong. If you have
> copied them correctly, perhaps the proofreader of the 1969 edition
> blundered horribly. I haven't got Leskien's Handbook within reach
> now, but the forms marked as dative above are most certainly
> genitives (and variant forms of the accusative), the alleged
> accusatives are non-existent, and the loc. ending is -e^, not -eN,
> EVERYWHERE in Slavic.
> > OK. So that means Havlík needs an overhaul? I would of course beSix of one... Why is the first vowel of *mIn- a jer, but the first
> happy if we could backproject a modified version of it into the
> field of PIE enclitics?
>
> Havlík's Law is about the pattern of loss and preservation of yers
> in words that have them in successive syllables, in those Slavic
> languages that have lost some of their yers. As OCS wasn't one of
> them, Havlík's Law just doesn't apply here. In yer-dropping
> languages the first vowel of mIne^, mUnojoN etc. of course
> disappears in accordance with Havlík's Law, cf. Pol. 1sg. <mnie,
> mna,> but 2sg. <ciebie, toba,>, as in the latter case the vowels are
> etymologically full.