--- Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <
miguelc@...> wrote:
> The origin of the Slavic o-stem Npl. ending -i has
> been much
> debated.
> - the optative *-oih1- (Slavic -i => *-ojh1)
> - the NA n./f. dual *-oih1 (Slavic -ê => *-oih1)
> - the personal pronoun datives mi, ti, si (=> *moj,
> *toj,
> *soj)
> - the 1sg. present (< perfect) vêdê (=> *-h2ai)
>
> Not usually considered in this context, but worth
> taking a
> look at:
>
> - the 2sg. athematic ending -si (if from *-saj)
> - the infinitive ending -ti (if from *-taj)
There is no reason to assume oi/ai had merged
at the time final V() were shifting. The changes
in word-final combos:
is is. ix i: i
us us. ux y: y
os os us u U
as æs æ E
ei ei i: i: i
oi oi ui i: i
ai æi æ: E
oyi o:i u:i u: u
oyis o:is u:s y: y
So u:>y: except in u:i; but u:is > u:s before.
Short ui>ii before u:i>u:. The PIE dative was -xYì
which became -yì after a vowel. In many languages
final yì > yei (in this case after oyi>o:i, etc).
But in C-stems there was no yi, so meghxYì > megYi >
mini > mInI > mInE.
The change of I>E occurred word-final after n
(and morpheme final (or sim.) in gnEzdo).
The change of U>E occurred word-final after w
so, final -wos>wU>vE.
After os>us analogy would allow u-stem nom. -ux
to become -us, etc. Similarly as jus>jux so nos
>nus>nux>nu:>ny. With no direct analogy (its
origin as a nom. forgotten) -tis>tix>ti:>ti.
Threre is optional contamination of -si > -sis
explaining -six>si:>si.
The fem. dual is from -axi > -ai > æ: > E. If
you think it was originally oih then assume simple
analogy.
The dative clitics had -ei in PIE. Greek forms
in oi are due to redistribution of round/pal
features in certain combinations.
xYmei twei pekYu akYris
xYmYoi twei pekYu akYrYos
xYmYoi twoi pokYu akYrYos
etc
> I have hinted at my solution to this problem here
> before,
> but I think the issue deserves fuller treatment.
>
> We first turn to Classical Greek accent laws,
> > In general, diphthongs count as long vowels for
> the purposes of
> > the accent. The diphthongs -ai and -oi, however,
> count as short
> > for accentuation when they occur at the absolute
> end of a word in
> > indicatives, subjunctives, imperatives,
> infinitives, or nominatives
> On the basis of the Greek distribution ("short"
> N.pl. -oi
> vs. "long" L.sg. -oi), we may put forward the
> hypothesis
> that the distribution of final -i and -ê in Slavic
> goes back
> to a PIE distinction between *-oj with consonantal
> /j/ [-VC]
> vs. *-oi with vocalic/glide /i/ [-VR].
The Greek evidence is probably nothing more than
sandhi (oi#V > oj#V, etc.) since the limitation is
relatively late.
I also remember you theorizing that *ei and *er
had the same accent pattern (and all sonorant C)
so it seems odd that j would be less sonor. than
r or n in this schema.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367