On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:22:57 -0000, "tgpedersen"
<
tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>> 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 has mostly been replaced by the ja:-stem accusative -joN.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
No, you don't add -joN to masc. nom. sg. <sI>.
In fact, -joN was probably added in the acc. sg. f. here to
avoid homonymy with the masc. nom. form.
The other devi-feminines in Slavic have acc.sg. -joN, and in
general all other cases follow the ja:-declension: bogynji,
bogynjoN "goddess" and the other words in -ynji; aldIji,
aldIjoN "boat", soNdIji, soNdIjoN "judge" and the other
words in -Iji (-ii); the ptc. praes. act. f. -oNtji,
-oNtjoN; the ptc. praet. act. -Us^i, -Us^joN; the
comparative f. (-ê)-jIs^i, (-ê)-jIs^joN.
When, later, the weak jers dropped, the strategy (in the
masc. nom. sg. pronouns <sI>, <tU>) was to add -j
(presumably the pronoun -jI < *is & *jos), or to
reduplicate. ORuss. sIsI ~ sesI, sii (= sIjI) > Russ. sej,
Ukr. sej, S/C sâj, Svn. sej. ORuss tUtU > Russ. tot. West
Slavic added -n (presumable from <onU>): (O)Cz. sen, ten.
>, and the latter is because the development of
>vowels in Slavic is independent of stress?
Yes, the development of vowels in Slavic is independent of
stress.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...