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

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 18:41:58 -0800 (PST), Sean Whalen
<stlatos@...> wrote:

>--- Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:42:11 -0800 (PST), Sean Whalen
>> <stlatos@...> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >--- Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:36:33 -0800 (PST), Sean
>> Whalen
>> >> <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
>> >> > There is no reason to assume oi/ai had merged
>> >> >at the time final V() were shifting.
>> >>
>> >> Yes there is.
>> >
>> > They merge. Why before this rule, not after?
>>
>> Because the merger a/o is Balto-Slavic.
>
> I don't think so. If you believe it how do you
>explain B-s *swopnos > svapnas and sUnU?

What's the relevance? How do you explain Lat. somnus vs.
Grk. hupnos and how does that relate to a/o in Balto-Slavic?

>> >> >ei ei i: i: i
>> >> >oi oi ui i: i
>> >>
>> >> It is in fact -ê (and -oj > -i)
>> >
>> > You started this thinking about why -oi/ai become
>> >different sounds;
>>
>> No. This clearly has nothing to do with -oi vs. -ai.
>
> Every ending in -i > E in the a:-stems; the one
>certain case of -oi > i.

Nonsense. We have with Slavic -i and certain *-oj(H) the
nom. pl., the opt./imperative, and the p.p. datives; we have
with Slavic -ê and certain *-oi(H) the loc.sg. and the NA n.
dual. With *-ai > -ê we have vêdê, and with *-aj > -i we
probably have the infinitive (*-oj is of course also
possible, but the Greek inf. has -ai). [I wouldn't describe
my proposal for 2sg. -si (Lith. -ì) from 2sg. middle *-saj
as certain]

>Since a: and o: merge
>but final a:i and o:i don't

Exactly: /a:/ and /o:/, unlike /a/ and /o/, do not merge in
Balto-Slavic or early Proto-Slavic. There was a merger in
late Slavic, but only after all the Auslautgesetze had run
their course.

>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> > Again, this is simple analogy. The dual > vE
>> >is evidence enough, no room for ana. there.
>>
>> But no room for *wos either.
>
> What do you mean?

*wos is not a possible dual form. The 1st. person dual p.p.
is *weh1 > vê, oblique *n.h3wé / *noh3 > na.

>> > I take them as -sis and -tis; there is no reason
>> >to derive -ti from *-tai when Baltic -tis exists.
>>
>> Does it?
>
> Yes, there are inf. in -ti and -tis.

No there aren't. There are infinitives in -t(i) (Latv. -t)
and there are reflexive infinitives in -ti-s (Latv. -tie-s).


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