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

--- Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...> wrote:

> 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:

> > 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?

I realized I didn't make my point clear enough
so I sent another clarification/correction
(the outcomes of *swop- vs. *kwap-).

> > 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

The uncertainty is whether it was word-final
-oi at the time the change occurred (instead
of -ois, -oite, etc).

, 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]

Though I don't agree with your PIE forms
I just meant that whatever the PIE it could
have changed by analogy by the time of these
rules. Since a:-stem -oi > -ai could have
happened at any time, for example.

> >> >> >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.

The dual and plural *-wos and *-mos seem to
take the place of the pronouns (with ana. *mus

> *mux in my schema). That is, the endings

*-mos > *-mus > mU and *-wos > *-wus > *-wU >
vE.

I have tried to observe sound changes in
forms unlikely to be changed analogically.
Since inst. -mI but pl. -mi it seemed to
be likely that s. > x word-final as else-
where but > mora before other changes. The
forms that seem to show -is > -I are all
where ana. could change (-x > -s in nom.
for example).

If the o-stem loc. was first -ei, a
change to -oi would be likely, but when?
If it happened after -oi > -ui then that
would explain -i vs -E.

There is also symmetry in the early
changes if I'm right:

-om > -um > -uw > -U
-os > -us > -us > -U
-oi > -ui > -i: > -i
-o:m > -u:m > -uw > -U
-o:s > -u:s > -u:s > -y
-o:i > -u:i > -ui > -u
-o:is > -u:is > -u:s > -y





____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265