From: tgpedersen
Message: 47691
Date: 2007-03-05
>?? I don't recall having claimed that.
> 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 has mostly been replaced by the ja:-stem accusative -joN.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 toThat's unnatural. Especially the part about stressed vowels becoming
> 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.