Re: [tied] Final -oi/-ai in Balto-Slavic

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:36:33 -0800 (PST), Sean Whalen
<stlatos@...> wrote:

>
>--- 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.

Yes there is.

>The changes in word-final combos:
>
>is is. ix i: i

But it is in fact -I

>us us. ux y: y

But it is in fact -U

>os os us u U
> as æs æ E

There seem to be no cases of PIE *-as attested in Slavic.

>ei ei i: i: i
>oi oi ui i: i

It is in fact -ê (and -oj > -i)

> ai æi æ: E
>oyi o:i u:i u: u
>oyis o:is u:s y: y

The ins.pl. can't have been -o:is, as that would have given
Lith. *-uis instead of actual -ais. The long vowel in Skt.
and Slavic is from (independent) lengthening of *-ojs under
the same circumstances as Acc.pl. *-ins, *-uns (Slavic -i,
-y, Skt. -i:n/-i:s, -u:n/-u:s).

> 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.

Nsg. *-wos gives plain -vU.

> After os>us analogy would allow u-stem nom. -ux
>to become -us, etc. Similarly as jus>jux

What form is that?

>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.

What forms are those?

> The fem. dual is from -axi > -ai > æ: > E. If
>you think it was originally oih then assume simple
>analogy.

I don't need to.

> 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.

The point is that _some_ -oi, -ai endings count as short,
others as long. So it's not sandhi.

> 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.

There is simply a distinction between sequences that make a
diphthong (Loc. sg. -oi, Acc. sg. -om, etc.), and sequences
that don't make a diphthong (the o-stem plural morpheme
-oj(-), the Acc.pl. -Vns < -Vms, etc.).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...