Re: [tied] Some accentological thoughts...

> There is only one other "long"
> ending where we would expect the same to have happened, the
> acc. sg. of the devi:-feminines, which should have developed
> *-ih2m > *-i:m > *-iN > -I. Unfortunately, this accusative
> has mostly been replaced by the ja:-stem accusative -joN.
> But we do have the pronoun OCS f. <si> (< *k^ih2), acc.
> <sIjoN> (< *k^ih2m + -joN) (hmm, maybe zimoN-sI is not so
> ungrammatical after all!).

Let me see if I got this straight: you have to add -joN because *k^ixm
should -> *si:m -> *sI, and the latter is because the development of
vowels in Slavic is independent of stress?


Torsten